Skip to main content

tv   House Session  CSPAN  June 25, 2015 2:00pm-9:01pm EDT

2:00 pm
i want to make sure everybody knows this cuts 1/2 of 1% from the e.p.a. mr. flores: to hopefully stop them from pursuing a regulatory scheme where the industry is already working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. then it puts it into money and puts it into accounts where we achieve greenhouse gas reductions and we bring resources to the market in a clean and safe way. my amendment accomplishes all of those things. reduced greenhouse gas emission, better jobs and better infrastructure for hardworking americans. so again i ask all the members to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? will the gentleman specify which amendment?
2:01 pm
the clerk will report. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $14 million. page 18, line 24 insert increase by $11600,000. the chair: whuent to house resolution 33, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: in listening to the previous debate, i will certainly agree. we've made great strides in america in accessing oil and gas. so much so that we've now become almost energy independent. all of that is good. all of that has happened in the last seven or eight years and we're thankful for that. however this appropriation has more money than needed. the administration has asked
2:02 pm
for about $32 million less. i'd like my colleagues to take a look at where we really do need to spend some money and this amendment that i'm proposing deals with this. this is california's water situation today. the great central valley of california is rapidly depleting its aqua fers and the water resources -- aquifers and the water resources that they depend on are rapidly depleting. this amendment would move about $11,611,000 to the u.s. -- usgs, the geological survey, for the purpose of studying the aquifers of california. keep in mind that the state of california voters approved a bond act which a good portion of that money is for underground aquifer storage.
2:03 pm
we have to have the science. we have to have the engineering to go with it and this amendment would provide the additional money that the usgs needs in order to do the surveys and the engineering and understanding the geology of these areas where we might be able to have the aquifers replenished. that's what it's all about. this leaves plenty of money behind for the purposes that the committee has identified in the approval and the permitting of mineral and gas and oil resources. and so i see my colleague from california who's well aware of these issues, including aquifers in the san fer in anda and santa ana aquifer -- san fernando and the santa ana aquifer. i reserve my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition.
2:04 pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i just oppose the offset right now because we've -- under the budget scenario that we're operating under we obviously have cut back a lot of these agencies somewhat. i'm simple theyic to the job that the united states geological survey has. as you know in california we probably have the most adjudicated water rights in the world. and i'll work on this in the future to see if we can't, as this process moves forward, if it's necessary after some conversations with usgs that they need additional resources i'll be happy to work with the gentleman to attempt to do so. this offset we could not accept at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i thank the chairman. certainly the chairman understands the issues of water in california as well as anyone does and also understands that in order for us to meet the current and certainly any future drought we have to use
2:05 pm
the aquifers which will require the services and knowledge and the capabilities of the u.s. geological survey to fully comprehend the aquifers has throughout the state, california as well as the central valley and coastal areas. i'll be delighted to work with the chairman as the process moves along and see if we might be able to find sufficient money to -- and address the specific needs of aquifer surveys by the usgs. so i look forward to working with the gentleman on that. rather than taking a no vote on this and going to a vote, i heard the gentleman suggest we could work together and quite possibly solve this problem and advance -- i withdraw my amendment. mr. calvert: i'll work with the gentleman. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i have an
2:06 pm
amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $25,300,000. page 132, line 24, after the dollar amount insert increase by $25,325,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman calvert for the fine work they've done on h.r. 282 and the ranking members. i think overall it's a great bill. what our amendment does would move over $25 million from the bureau of land management, law enforcement activities and transfer that money into the deficit savings account. just a brief cap. b.l.m., bureau of land management, has a 200 officers
2:07 pm
seven criminal investigators enforcing a wide range of laws. in addition, the f.b.i. has 35,000 agents, the department of homeland security has over 70,000 enforcement agents. the i.r.s. has over 700 criminal investigator employees, including 2,600 special agents. the a.t.f. has over 2500 special agents. the d.e.a. over 5000. with just those five agencies, there's over 115,000 national law agents in just these five agencies. i feel that we have enough, you know, of the federal agencies to deal with the problem to enforce the laws on the book. especially when we're talking about the violation on federal land. and i would reserve my time at this point. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: the gentleman's amount would cut $25 million
2:08 pm
from the bureau of land management program and put the savings into the so-called spending reduction account. and the gentleman pointed out that he plans on reducing that amount in law enforcement in the bureau of land management. the employees who are out doing this work are already overstretched and find themselves sometimes in very dangerous positions. the b.l.m. is the caretaker of our nation's public lands. they protect 1:8 of the country. i think we should make sure that b.l.m. law enforcement is able to do their job, do their job safely, come home to their families and protect america's resources. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. mr. calvert: will the gentleman yield for a second? the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. calvert: i am a werner. a significant amount of the west is in b.l.m. control. dealing with b.l.m. over the
2:09 pm
years, they have a lot of land mass that they deal with and they also work with the native american tribes and others dealing with really a restricted number of law enforcement. now, we comment and criticize about how well they operate but i hope we didn't have to do this because there is a considerable need for some law enforcement in those vast areas in had which the federal government owns throughout the western united states. mr. yoho: i agree with that. this amendment is about priorities. i think, you know, with the state of the economy that we are on both sides i don't have to remind people that we have the debt ceiling coming up and we're short of money. we have the highway trust fund that's going to come up again at the end of july and we're short of money. i believe that the federal government has enough agents and more than enough debt, for sure. and i just encourage people to vote in favor of this amendment. and when i see, you know, we get people from our district, they talk to us about what happened out in nevada with the
2:10 pm
clive and bundy case, when you have swat capabilities showing up we get asked, why are agencies having that tactical gear, why do they have that kind of capacity. this is not to weaken them, you know, in a sense. and we do have to patrol those areas. i just think at this point in time that $25 million would serve our debt. and with that i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. this bill already is $246 million below the f.y. 2015 enacted level. this amendment only causes further damage. let's look at what's been happening over the past decade. as the funding has decreased, we know from committee hearings that the demands on the b.l.m. have increased. there are more oil and gas leases to manage to make sure that they are properly protected. these issues that we deal with
2:11 pm
in the bureau of land management also with law enforcement, is working directly with the public sometimes who is out recreating and accessing these lands. i would just like once again to reiterate my strong opposition to cutting law enforcement for b.l.m. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in lieu of what you are saying, i withdraw this amendment at this time if we can have a serious discussion about the debt before september . with that i yield back. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by
2:12 pm
$4,010,000. page 8, line 14, after the dollar amount insert increased by $3,902,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman -- the chair: just a moment. pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. chairman. this bill deals with a very real problem for delivering water to southern california. those people that are familiar with the way in which the california system works, water flows down the sacramento river . i'll just put this up here. water comes down the sacramento river towards the delta and from north -- excuse me -- down the sacramento river from the south and up the san joaquin,
2:13 pm
it all gets to the delta that the massive pumps puts it in the canal and put it to the san joaquin valley and onto southern california. los angeles, orange county and other cities in that massive urban area. there's a problem in the delta. a lot of problems. one of the problems are aquatic plants. the delta is being totally overrun by water hysenth. other parts of the united states and the west are also finding these invasive water aquatic plants of plugging their pumps, reducing water supply eliminating opportunities for boating recreation fishing and the like. what this amount does is to address that problem by adding $3,902,000 to the aquatic habitat species conservation fund.
2:14 pm
thereby allowing the federal agencies to work with the state and local agencies to attack the aquatic plants, specifically in the delta. those who want to have more money flowing south to the san joaquin valley and southern california's great metropolitan areas including orange county ought to be in favor of unplugging the pumps and getting the plants reduced in the delta. that's what we would do. it's a very real problem. it's a problem that exists today and it's also money that comes from some 32 million more dollars in this bureau of land management, oil and gas permitting account than the president thought necessary. so surely there's a little bit of room to move around so that southern california can have the water that it needs. i yield -- i reserve the remaining of my time. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time.
2:15 pm
the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do. again, the offset. right now b.l.m. is involved in this issue with the sage grass in the west. we in effect gave both b.l.m. and fish and wildlife service additional resources in order for us not to be in a position to list the sage grass to make sure that we do what's necessary in the sage ecosystem. at the same time we plused up conservation accounts within the fish and wildlife service for those types of evasive species. we have a number of evasive species, not just in the plant world but obviously we have the evasive clam that, as you mentioned stuffing up the mussel that's causing disruptions throughout the west. .
2:16 pm
so i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do but we're under the -- under the budget allocations we have we've done what we could in both of these accounts, which are both doing good work on conservation and make sure we have conserve species and get rid of bad species throughout the united states. i would hope the gentleman would withdraw and i'll work with him in the future on this as well as the other issue. the chair: the gentleman yields back the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: the gentleman is correct, we do have a problem. we have the mussels, the water hyacinths and other aquatic invasive species causing havoc throughout the united states. certainly the quadra mussel in the east, along the great lakes in chicago. certainly in california, the energy systems at hoover dam on
2:17 pm
the colorado river are impeded by the mussels and the delta with water hyacinths and other lakes an streams throughout the west. if we let this problem continue to grow, we're going to continue to have less water, less power available to us. this is just under $4 million coming out of an account that was plused up by some $32 million over and above what the administration thought necessary. i would remind all of us that the administration has done a rather good job on permitting, so much so that we now have the greatest production of oil and gas ever in the united states. so much so that we are on the verge of becoming energy sufficient. do we need another $32 million to do what's already being done? or would that $4 million of that $32 million be better spent dealing with a very real problem trying to get water to the pumps so it can go south to
2:18 pm
orange county and los angeles and the san waugh -- and to san joaquin county. i look forward to working with you, mr. chairman but i'm going to ask for a vote on this one. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. garamendi: i yield back my remaining time. mr. calvert: just in close, the plus up in the b.l.m. account was primarily to help resolve the issue in 11 states involving the sage grouse which is on the verge of extinction and we wanted to -- and this was dollars that b.l.m. and the -- and we have a plus up in the fish and wildlife service accountings to recognize a real problem that hits 11 western states. we don't -- we do not underestimate the problems in the west as it involves the drought and we're going to continue to work on that but again i would oppose this based upon the offset. i yield back.
2:19 pm
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. clerk will read. the clerk: page 3rk line 10, in addition, $39,696,000 for mining law administration program operations. land acquisition, $7,250,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by
2:20 pm
mr. guinta of new hampshire. page 3, line 25, after the dollar amount insert increased by $7 million. page three, line 15, after the dollar amount insert increased by by -- mr. guinta: i move that the reading be dispensed with. the chair: is there objection? pursuant to house resolution 33 the gentleman from new hampshire and a member opposed will each control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guinta: i rise in support of my amendment to the department of interior appropriations bill to increase fund big $16 million for the land and water conservation fund. since 1978, lwcf receipts have been collected annually to specifically fund land acquisition, conserve threat and endangered species and provide grants to states. however, more than $18 million has been siphoned from lwcf
2:21 pm
trust since the program's inception in 1965, diverting from their original conservation purpose. despite a history of underfunding lwcf remains a crucial program to conserve our nation's land water, historic and recreational heritage. as those of us in my home state of new hampshire know, we are lucky to call one of the most pristine environments in the nation our home. we understand the impact on our state's natural resources and our access to hunting fishing and outdoor activities. the lwcf is also essential to protect national parks, national wildlife refuges, wild and scenic river corridor, national scenic and historic trails, bureau of land management land and other federal areas. while i applaud the appropriations committee for their hard work on this important bill as it does prevent harmful regulatory overreach and does improve jobs and finds important savings for
2:22 pm
taxpayers and i certainly urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill but given the importance of the lwcf programs any across the country i believe more robust funding for this program is important for the reasons i stated. i thank you and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise in opposition but i'll ask the gentleman to withdraw but i have some comments first. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: the bill provides $ 7 million for land acquisition and our intent was to have a federal land acquisition program that has support in the east but lukewarm spoth in the west where the federal government owns much of the land. but when congress begins congress will exercise its power
2:23 pm
of the purse by selecting projects from the president's budget to improve recreational access that have strong local, state and congressional support. i'll work with the gentleman, i know he's a strong advocate of the water conservation fund but this might but put advo -- advocates on both sides of the aisle some unnecessary choices. i ask the gentleman to withdraw. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? mr. guinta: i thank the gentleman and look forward to working with the chairman on this critical issue. i recognize the differences between the east and west and the challenges that we do face, i certainly support again the underlying bill and look forward to working with the chairman on this very important issue in new hampshire and i withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? clerk will report the amendment.
2:24 pm
the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, pange 3, line 25 after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $1 million, increased by $1 million. the chair: pursuant to -- pursuant to house -- the gentleman will -- pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: my apologies for jumping the gun yet again. this is an amendment that becomes a talk point amendment. this is something we need to talk about. our colleague a moment ago raised the question of the land and water conservation fund. in addition to the words he spoke, we need to be aware that later this next month, in about 100 days actually, i guess that's more than a month the land and water conservation fund is going to disappear. it needs to be re-authorized.
2:25 pm
and i see in this -- on the floor here today men and women that are in a position to make that happen. we really cannot lose this program. for example, the sequoyqua national forest. projects in the sequoia national forest and the majority leader's office district were funded through the land and water conservation fund. there's a galloway park playground expansion in clark county ohio. i think we know whose district that is. the speaker's district. the chairman of the subcommittee here in the san bernardino -- there's -- and the santa rosa and the there's a santa ana river trail and parkway who i'm sure the chairman is familiar with that parkway. this is all land and water conservation projects that over the years have been used.
2:26 pm
100 days. we've got some work to do here. is the money available? yes. there's $18 billion in the land and -- in the land and water conservation fund that has not been spent. it's sitting there, well, i guess there's an i.o.u. there actually. the cash isn't there there's an i.o.u. because over the years, we have diverted money from the original purpose and law to transfer that money over to all kinds of projects. perhaps some even went to debt reduction. but nonetheless, it's not been used for its intended purpose and legal purpose, that is land and water conservation fund. every year, other $900 million of raility -- royalties come in from the oil and gas and energy companies for the public resources -- resources that they mine or pump out of the earth. only a small fraction of that money has ever gone to the land
2:27 pm
and water conservation fund. i want all of taos pay attention to this extraordinarily important program a program i was able to work with when i was deputy secretary at the department of interior making sure that projects in all our districts parks, local parks, some of the big national parks, including national forests such as the one in mr. mccarthy's district. so why are we not moving adressively to re-authorize the land and water conservation fund? and why is it that every year we deny the public whether it's a playground or swimming pool or a park ex-pangs playground in ohio, why do we deny the public the opportunity to -- for a better life in their own communities? i don't understand and i don't think that if any of us were to think about this for any amount
2:28 pm
of time we'd say yeah, let's re-authorize the land and water conservation fund. let's not let it expire. let's make sure that the money that was intended for it, the royalties from the resources of this great nation that those royalties be spent on providing the projects that all of america can enjoy. that's what it's all about. and i don't know if i'll go to a vote on this one but i have in my view here leaders in the house who really have the pow and i think the obligation to make sure the lwcf, land and water conservation fund is re-authorized and that we adequately fund it. so i think what i'll do is withdraw the amendment, i achieved at least my own goal of talking about something that i believe important.
2:29 pm
so i'll withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 4, line 3, oregon and california grant lands. $110,602000. range improvements, $10 million. service charges, departures and forthetures, such amounts as may be collected under public law 94-579. misrainus trust funds. such amounts as may be contributed under section 307 of public law 94-579. administrative provisions. provisions may be available for dismantling of temporary structures up to $100,000 per payment. united states fish and wildlife
2:30 pm
service resource management, $1,220343,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment for consideration, please. the chair: clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clawson of florida, page 18, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $1 million. page 62 line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1,200,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida is recognized. . mr. clawson: thank you. i'll be brief and improve just a little bit on a very good bill and my congratulations to the team and to the ranking member and to the chairman. including -- included in the u.s. fish and wildlife resource management account is funding for the national wildlife review system. by my amendment, we ask an extra $1 million be added to this account.
2:31 pm
we are offsetting the increase by taking $1 million from the $2.4 billion environmental protection agency programs and management account. hardly a stretch. the national wildlife system has grown to over $-- 563 national wildlife refuge and 38 wetland management districts. 150 million acres in all. we have several of these national wildlife refuges in my district or near my district, including darling national wildlife refuge on santa bell island and the florida panther national wildlife refuge outside of naples. darling national wildlife refuge in particular sets itself apart as a leading contributor to the economy with 816,000 visitors a year. importantly, my hero, my mother
2:32 pm
loves to go here and i love to take her there in the autumn of her lifetime. i ask my fellow members to support this $1 million adjustment to these national treasures. mr. calvert: i think you have a good amendment. i certainly support it. i'd ask members to vote aye on that amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. clawson: i thank the ranking member and the chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. does any member seek time in opposition? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 8, line 23
2:33 pm
construction. $13,144,000. land acquisition, $27,500000. cooperative endangered species conservation fund $50,095,000. national wildlife refuge fund, $13,228,000. north american wetlands conservation fund, $35 million. neotropical migratory bird foundation, $3,360,000. multispecies conservation fund, $1569,000. state and tribal wildlife grants $59195,000. administrative provisions. appropriations shall be available for repair of damage to public roads.
2:34 pm
national park service operation of the national park system, $2,327,811,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clawson of florida. page 14, line 10, after the first dollar amount insert increased by $1 million. page 14 line 10, after the second dollar amount insert increased by $1 million. page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1,250,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. clawson: we're asking for an additional $1 million to be put toward everglade restoration to be paid for by a decrease in the environmental
2:35 pm
protection agency's environmental programs and management account. and i first want to say that i am grateful to my colleague, democratic colleague from florida, patrick murphy, who has supported me on this and repeatedly support our important everglades initiative. shortly after retiring from the private sector three years ago, i took a walk in the gulf with my father. and when we got into -- when we waited into the gulf we got to about knee depth of water we looked down and couldn't see our toes because that was a bad year for all the discharges into the gulf of mexico. and so my dad said to me, can you do something about this? just get involved? i said, dad, what does retired auto parts executive, what can he do to help this situation? he said, if you get involved, you'll figure out what to do. and from there i got involved in local matters and then eventually became -- came here
2:36 pm
to congress. here in -- in florida we are indeed blessed to have an extensive network of over 1.5 million acres of fresh water and saltwater known as everglades national park. it is the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the united states and it serves as home to numerous beautiful species including a number of endangered species. for these reasons we must guarantee the everglades continue to reflect our shared values of healthy landscape through effective stewardship and conscientious management and that's why i offer this amendment today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. do you reserve your time? mr. calvert: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. i know you have been a champion for the everglades and certainly a concern of this committee.
2:37 pm
i want to get out there and look at those pythons out there in the everglades. i understand they're all over the place. i certainly think it's -- mr. clawson: too many. mr. calvert: that's the problem. i'd be happy to support this amendment. i would urge an aye vote when it comes up. the chair: any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from florida. mr. clawson: humble appreciation to the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama rise? ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. sewell of alabama, page 14, line 10, after the first dollar amount insert increased by $2,500,000. page 14, line 24, after the dollar amount insert increase
2:38 pm
by $4,500,000. page 15, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increase by $4,500,000. page 36, line 8 after the dollar amount insert reduce by $7 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from alabama and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for five minutes. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to thank the subcommittee chairman, mr. calvert, as well as the ranking member, ms. mccollum, for their hard work in shepherding this important legislation to the floor. and most importantly for working with me and my staff to propose this amendment and to make sure that it's budget neutral. on the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act we need to invest in the national park service sites associated with the civil rights movement, not cut necessary funding. locations such as the selma and
2:39 pm
montgomery historic trail, little rock, arkansas' central high school national historic site, brown vs. board of education national historic site and martin luther king national historic site tell the stories of civil rights and voting rights in this country. we need to help these prominent locations for generations. my amendment increases funding by $2.5 million for the documentation and preservation of civil rights history as well as restores $2.5 million for the rehabilitation and preservation of historic sites on the campuses of historically black colleges. and $2 million additional for competitive grants for the civil rights initiative to preserve sites of the civil rights movement. institutions such as miles college in alabama and another in mississippi serve as base for students who were involved in the civil rights movement. some projects that would benefit would include addition
2:40 pm
-- digitalizing the archives at places such as tuskegee university where the airmen and the records and papers of booker t. washington and george washington car very reside. other sites that would benefit from this funding is the carter woodson home historical site in washington d.c., the selma interpretive center at selma university, and the -- and the interpretive center at alabama state university and the harriet tubman underground railroad national historic park in maryland. mr. speaker, over the last five years, as a representative of the seventh congressional district and a proud product of selma alabama, my native hometown, it's been an honor not only to represent this wonderful district but to protect the legacy of those that came before us and to make sure the history of the movement is preserved for future generations. it was my high honor on march
2:41 pm
7, 2015, to welcome president and mrs. obama as well as president and mrs. george w. bush, along with 100 members of congress and the senate, republican and democrat to my hometown of selma where we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the sela to montgomery -- selma to montgomery march. let us preserve that history and continue to show our commitment to the legacy of john lewis and those brave freedom fighters who changed the nation as well as -- as well as this world for their quest for equality and justice for all. i want to again thank the subcommittee chair, mr. calvert, i want to thank the ranking member, ms. mccollum, for their dedication and commitment to this preservation. i urge my colleagues to support the sewell amendment and preserve the civil rights and voting rights. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose
2:42 pm
does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition though i am not opposed to the amendment. i want to thank the gentlelady for a fine amendment and the great work that she has done working with our staff and with the -- both the minority staff and majority staff in fashioning this amendment. i'd like to yield time to ms. mccollum who would also like to say some nice things. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman for the generosity of yielding me. i support increased funding for the president's civil rights initiative. i remain a strong supporter for the president's initial request for $50 million for the civil rights initiative. and while the gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding by $7 million, we still have a long way to get to the adequate to the funding for these very important sacred places, i might add, in our nation's history to protect them. i appreciate the majority's willingness to accept this
2:43 pm
amendment and i thank the sponsor for offering it. i thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from alabama. ms. sewell: i just want to again reiterate my thanks. you know, in this commemorative year of the selma and montgomery march and so many pivotal moments including the upcoming 50th anniversary of the voting rights act, i thank you for your commitment and making sure we preserve these wonderful sites for future generations. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
2:44 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gallego of arizona. after the first dollar amount insert increased by $1 million, reduce by $1 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment will help ensure that all communities are able to participate in the decisions that shape the national park system. environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income. with respect to our nation's environmental laws and policies. this amendment represents an important step towards that goal. the n.p.s. has robust planning, environment and public
2:45 pm
continent database known as pepsi. this is used as consultation of planning issues such as management plans, construction projects, environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. this website is how the users of the national park service can participate in n.p.s. decisions or its decision makings. unfortunately however, pepsi is available in english. no spanish. none of the indigenous languages of our american brothers and sisters. to address this shortcoming, my amendment will provide $1 million to update pepsi. this funding will provide translation of the contents of pepsi to the public, the ability to provide input into the pepsi process in the most commonly spoken languages and informing affected communities of the improvements. . america is becoming more and more diverse every day. it's critical that new and growing communities can access our lands and services.
2:46 pm
they are the new stewards that the national park service must engage as they prepare for its centennial they will need improvised tools to communicate with people. that's what my amendment is intended to accomplish. this measure will also help the park service to achieve their performance benchmarks. one of the key measures of department of environmental justice outcomes is to reach minority and underserved communities. executive order 11316 states that it shall provide access to persons with limited english fluency. by making their website available in other languages they wail make progress toward this important prirmente. we can all agree that engaging the public on important decisions is a linchpin of our system of government.
2:47 pm
when all are allowed access, we improve the outcomes and strengthen our democracy. i hope all members join me in supporting this critical amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- do you reserve or yield? mr. gallego: i yield back. the chair: does anyone seek time in opposition? the request is -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. beyer of virginia. page 14 after line 14 insert the follow, emergency insfra truckture repairs, for expenses necessary for emergency infrastructure repairs related
2:48 pm
to the national park service deferred maintenance backlog $11,500,000,000 to remain available until expended. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. value kert: i re-- mr. calvert: i reserve a point of order. the chair: a point of order is reserved. mr. byer: i rise to -- beyer: i rise -- mr. beyer: i rise to support this amendment. they to took the precautionary measure of closing two lanes on the iconic bridge, one of the major entrances to the area. this demonstrates the degradation of park infrastructure throughout the country and shows the extent of
2:49 pm
the backlog and the need to provide funds for the reliability of the economy and the safety of the public. the backlog has also grown because of the decline in the construction account. over the past deng cade there's been a 6 % decline, the park service receives only 58 cents of every dollar it needs just to keep the backlog from growing. mr. chairman, the united states is the richest country in the history of mankind. the democratic leader, military leader, human rights leader of all the world. can we not also be the investment lead her this country needs to be the country that invests in the infrastructure today for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. i have other speakers to speak in favor of this at the appropriate time and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: the proposes a net
2:50 pm
increase in the bill. it is not in order under section 3-d-3 of house resolution 5 which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase to the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or an eequal or greater increase pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member seek recognition? >> i rise to oppose the point of order and yield time to the distinguished representative from massachusetts, ms. son gas. the chair: the gentlewoman can be recognized in her own time. does the gentlewoman seek recognition? ms. sob gas: i rise and ask to
2:51 pm
be heard on the point of order. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: i rise in support of increased funding for the national park service in order to address the deferred maintenance backlog. despite its significant and multifaceted contributions to our country, the national park service budget has been shrinking compromising its ability to adequately protect our treasured national history. shrinking appropriations and increasing wear and tear on aging infrastructure has led -- the chair: the gentlelady must confine her remarks to the point of order. ms. sob gas: thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. does any person want to be heard on the point of order? mr. beyer: no, only that we have done our best to invest in parks this was the only meaningful way way to raise the obvious need for the $11 month 5 billion in infrastructure. the chair: the gentleman from california makes a point of order that the amendment offered
2:52 pm
by the gentleman from virginia violates section 3-d-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-d-3 makes it not in order to po pose a net increase. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 15, national recreation and preservation $62,467,000. historic preservation fund, $60,910,000. construction, $139, 555000. land and water conservation fund rescission, contract authority is rescinded. land acquisition and state assistance, $84367,000.
2:53 pm
centennial challenge, $20 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. page , line 2 , after the dollar amount insert increased by $30 million, reduced by $30 million. the chair: the gentlelady -- pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from massachusetts and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: my amendment is to
2:54 pm
recognize the importance of funding the program at the level requested by president obama and the national park service. next year is the 100th anniversary of the national park service a milestone in this country's history that we as a nation should be proud of and celebrate. for a century now, the national parks have preserved on -- and protected our country's national, culture and historic resources for the use and enjoyment of future generations. i'm proud to represent two national parks. in my hometown, the lowell national historic park was the first urban national park of its kind. commemorating and preserving the catalytic role the city played in spawning the industrial revolution. minuteman national park is down the road in concord where visitors can see firsthand where the shot heard around the world was fired and where the american revolution began. we are grateful that we have
2:55 pm
made the commitment to protect history for future generations coming away awed by these sites. this is an opportunity to increase engagement with our parks so we cannot only celebrate the places we love to visit with family and friends but also make the necessary investments to prepare our parkers in next 100 years. despite a significant and multifaceted obligation, the park service budget has been shrinking, compromising its ability to ensure adequate protection to its treasured national history. since 2010, there's been more than a 7% or $178 million reduction in today's dollars in the account to operate the national parks. over the last decade, there's been a 62% or $227 million decline in the national park services construction account in today's dollars. this has led to an enormous deferred maintenance backlog totaling $11.5 billion of
2:56 pm
dilapidated visitors' centers, unmaintained trail centers and failing water treatment facilities. historically our parks have had bipartisan support. to mark the 50th anniversary of the national park service in 1966 president eisenhower initiated mission 66, which invested more than $1 billion in improvements to visitor facilities throughout the park system. 10 years ahead of the 100th anniversary president george w. bush launched a centennial initialtive a 10-year $3 billion plan to restore the parks through a combination of public and private funding that effort was never fully realized but president obama revived the bipartisan initiative ahead of the 2016 centennial celebration. in the fiscal year 15 omnibus spending bill, congress provided $10 million to reinvigorate the challenge. the initial $10 million federal investment was matched by an additional $16 million in private donations for signature
2:57 pm
centennial projects. in total $10 -- in total 106 projects were selected throughout the country to chip away at the backlog and support youth programs. over 200 projects were submitted, demonstrating the high demand for money to meet needs. congress should strongly consider increasing funding levelers in centennial challenge in 2016. i understand that this is a difficult task given the inadequate funding allocation prosfrired the interior department under the budget control act and sequestration. i regret we were unable to do so to this amendment. the funding allocation for the national park service represents yet another example of why congress must work together on a bipartisan basis to end sequestration. i hope that we can find a way to support the centennial challenge and the president's budget request for the national park service system of that we not
2:58 pm
only celebrate the places we love to visit with family and friends but to make the necessary investments that will prepare our parks for the next 100 years. with that mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. >> i rise to speak in favor of the representative's amendment. the chair: does the gentlewoman from massachusetts yield time. ms. tsongas: i yield one minute to mr. beyer of virginia. mr. beyer: i rise in support of retchti tsongas' amendment. as a former national park service ranger i'm proud to serve as congressional friend to the national park service centennial and i e' -- eagerly await the centennial of 2016. it is important to ensure the parks have the resources they need to enter into their second century of service to the american people.
2:59 pm
the interior committee has tried its best to invest in parks given its insufficient allocation but with the centennial approach this level is not remotely enough for parks. recognizing the serious impact of both the budget control act and emergency wildfire on interior allocation, congress must find a way to meet the needs of parks by securing another budget deal to get rid of the threat of sequester. there's no better time than the centennial for robust investment bhi congress and the american people. it's time to make our national parks a national priority. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
3:00 pm
clerk will read. the clerk: page 17, line 4, administrative provisions including transfer of funds. franchise fees credited to a subaccount shall be available for expenditure for use within the national park system. where the costs of administration of grants authorized the gulf of mexico energy security act the national park service may retain up to 3% of amounts. . united states geological survey surveys, investigations and research, $1,045,000,000 to remain available until september 30 2017. administrative provisions, such sums necessary shall be available for contracting for the furnishings of maps and making specialized surveys. bureau of ocean energy management ocean energy management, $167,270,000.
3:01 pm
the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: mr. chairman, capps amendment number 34. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capps of california. page 21, line 3, after each of the first and second dollar amounts insert reduced by $5434,000. page 64, line 21, after the dollar amount insert increased by $5,434,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. drilling for and transporting oil and gas is a dirty and dangerous business. there is no disputing that. no matter what assurances are given by the oil industry, spills do happen and they will continue to happen as long as we depend on fossil fuels for
3:02 pm
our energy needs. sadly, my constituents in sbashsbash -- santa barbara california, are familiar with this. over 1 hubbed,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the -- 100,000 gallons of crude oil spilled. the oil spilled down a hill through a culvert and into the ocean eventually spreading thick black tar on nearly 100 miles of coastline. this was a unique spill in that it impacted both land and ocean requiring both the environmental protection agency, or e.p.a., as well as coast guard to respond to and lead the cleanup effort. when it comes to oil spills, the damage gets worse by the minute. so ensuring that spill response teams are properly trained and prepared to respond quickly is essential to minimizing the impacts. this is precisely why the e.p.a. has jurisdiction over the inland oil spills program. the e.p.a. uses this funding to
3:03 pm
prevent, to prepare for and to respond to oil spills associated with the more than 600,000 oil storage facilities at the agency -- that the agency regulates. the e.p.a.'s oil program also provides oil spill response resources and training for states localities and tribal government. despite its scope and importance this program has been seriously underfunded for years and h.r. 2822 only makes things worse by funding this program at nearly 25% less than the president requested. my amendment would simply increase funding for this program by $5.4 million to match the president's requested amount of $23.4 million for fiscal year 2016. this modest increase in funding would help reensure that e.p.a. can do its re-ensure that e.p.a. can do its job from the impacts of oil spills.
3:04 pm
the funding would be offset by reducing b.l.m. of ocean management by an equal amount. it is to target the funding used by new off-shore oil and gas leasing. it it will continue safety operations and environmental assessments. the new five-year off-shore and oil gas program being drafted calls for 14 potential lease sales, including in some new areas off the east coast. expanding drilling by cutting funding for oil spill cleanup is incredibly irresponsible. mr. chairman, i have spent my entire career in congress fighting to stop off-shore drilling because i firmly believe the risks outweigh the benefits. perhaps the current majority does not agree with me on this goal. but i hope we can at least all
3:05 pm
agree we should not be expanding oil drilling unless we are properly preparing for the spills that will inevitably occur. as long as we drill for oil, there will be oil spills, and the economic and ecological risks of these spills only increases when the oil is extracted off-shore. while the coast guard is responsible for responding to off-shore spills, the recent spill in my district shows that off-shore drilling can also have on-shore impacts especially for coastal communities like those i represent. the oil that spilled from the plains all american pipeline was extracted just a few miles off-shore in federal waters. it was then pumped on-shore to a holding facility, and it continued through the pipeline that ruptured. this off-shore oil spilled from the pipeline down a hillside, onto the beach and back into the ocean under which it had been extracted. drilling and spill cleanup are
3:06 pm
inextricably linked. the most we can do is to make sure the e.p.a. has the resources it needs to ensure that spills are quickly and properly cleaned up when they inevitably happen. this is precisely what my amendment seeks to achieve. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: as in the case with many of the amendments today before us, i cannot support the offset. but let me say this. e.p.a. may be reimbursed for oil spill response activities from the oil spill liability trust fund. now personally i think e.p.a. should have direct access to that trust fund to avoid the delays these administrative reimbursement delays when responding to an oil spill such as what happened in california. however, that's an authorized issue, not an appropriating issue, bug that's --
3:07 pm
authorizing issue, not an appropriating issue because those dollars will be there to clean that up and we just need to clean up the bureaucracy to have more immediacy in that process. but this offset i cannot support. so for that reason i oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. calvert: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i have no additional speakers. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: all right. i'm prepared to close. in closing i'd like to reiterate two points. first, that oil and gas exploration is inherently dangerous. there's no disputing that. spills do happen. unfortunately my district observed these consequences firsthand during the plains pipeline spill just over a month ago. second, if we're going to continue to extract to transport and to utilize oil we need to be prepared for the inevidentibility of thighs spills. the e.p.a.'s inland oil spills program is intended just for
3:08 pm
this purpose, to be prepared to respond to the inevitable. it is irresponsible to develop new oil extraction, including off-shore without being prepared to respond to its risks. mr. chairman i urge support for this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i'd urge a no vote on this amendment. i don't agree to the offset and the fact that we have an oil spill liability trust fund that should be accessed, i'd be happy to work with the gentlelady to work with the authorizers to where we can get a more immediate response to these activities. that happen from time to time in this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i'd request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the
3:09 pm
gentlelady from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 21, line 21, bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, off-shore safety and environmental enforcement $123,354,000 of which $66,100 is to remain available until september 30, 2017. $65 million for an additional amount. oil spill research $14,899,000. office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement regulation and technology, $123,253,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. johnson of ohio.
3:10 pm
page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $2 million. page 65 lines 5 and 10, after each dollar amount insert increase by $2 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from ohio and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, would like to thank chairman calvert and the subcommittee for a great under lying piece of legislation. we have a great appropriations bill mere, and i look forward to supporting it. my amendment to the f.y. 2016 interior and environment bill would keep the surface enforcement spending in check with the agency's obligation. specifically it will reduce o.s.m.'s regulation and technology budget by $2 million and transfer those funds to the drinking water safety revolving
3:11 pm
funds. according to o.s.m., states and tribes perform 97% of the regulatory activity relating to surface coal mining in the united states, and yet o.s.m. receives 25% of the staffing resources to perform 3% of the work. this would bring -- by the work being done by o.s.m. although the surface mining and control reclamation act or smacra, was to approve programs to exclude jurisdiction of mining in their states, under the current administration, o.s.m. has increasingly used its inflated budget to improperly usurp the lawful decisions of state legislators. it will restore the state's role in surface regulation. for instance, over the past five years o.s.m. has spent more than $10 million of its
3:12 pm
dispicture portionately large budget to pursue a wholesale regulatory rewrite of the agency's regulatory program. dubbed the stream protection rule by the agency, this massive regulatory undertaking has little to do with protecting streams and more to do with riding roughshod over state regulating programs including state clean water act regulators. during its pursuit of the stream protection rule o.s.m. has completely cut states out of the prosess -- process, in violation of the legal obligations under the environmental policy act. my amendment will help restrain the resources of the agency from promulgating a rule made without state consultation and in violation of nepa. in fact, 10 states initially signed a memorandum of understanding with o.s.m. and agreed to serve as cooperating agencies for the development of the environmental impact statement to accompany the so-called stream protection rule. of those 10 states, six have
3:13 pm
withdrawn their respective m.o.u.'s due to lack of consultation from them. this includes utah, texas new mexico, kentucky, west virginia. more states are expected to withdraw and while wyoming is still a cooperating agency, they have requested their state's seal be removed from the e.i.s. mr. chairman, i urge my fellow colleagues to support this amendment that will keep spending in check with the o.s.m.'s statutory responsibilities, and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. calvert: will the gentleman yield time? mr. johnson: i will yield to the chairman. mr. calvert: i understand there is a level of frustration for the stream buffer rule. we attempted to address that through the bill language to limit funding. i certainly support what you're doing for water infrastructure. so it's a good amendment that will leverage jobs and i urge an aye vote. i thank the gentleman.
3:14 pm
mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield some time, two minutes, to my colleague from west virginia. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized, two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of mr. johnson's amendment and transfer the funds to the drinking water state revolving funds. this amendment will cut funding for an office that has launched and all-out war on coal in my home state of west virginia. the office of surface mining stream protection rule is intentionally designed to shut down all surface mining. and a significant section of underground mining in the app latchin region. a -- appalachian region. a 2012 study estimates cost at nearly 80,000 direct coal related jobs. the coal industry is vital to west virginia and my district. coal supports over 90% of the
3:15 pm
power generation in my state. it is crucial that we cut the funding for the office of surface mining before they can do any more damage. i thank my colleague for offering this amendment and urge its passage. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from ohio has 30 seconds remaining. mr. johnson: mr. chairman, thank you. let me thank the subcommittee, chairman calvert again, for supporting this amendment. i urge a yes vote by my colleagues, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. . the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman if ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 13, in addition for cost to review $40,000. abandoned mine reclamation fund,
3:16 pm
$27,303,000. in addition, $30,000 for grant to state for reclamation of abandoned mine land. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. owe ho of florida. page 29, line 23, insert after the dollar amount insert reduced by $29,000,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. yo ho. mr. yoho: after speaking to chairman calvert and chairman rodgers on a future amendment i'm going to withdraw this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
3:17 pm
back. the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. griffith of virginia. page 26, line 7 strike three and insert six. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control phi maines -- minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: mr. chairman, expanding the numb of appalachian states eligible for this program from three to six will allow additional states including virginia to be able to participate. the committee and subcommittee came up with a great idea, i just want to make sure it's expand sod more states can benefit. the kentucky coal association was in this week for a press conference and one of their members said to me at that time that the sickness that has been
3:18 pm
in kentucky is now spreading to virginia and they're absolutely right. in one year's time my district has lost hundreds of coal mine jobs due to this administration's burdensome regulations on the coal industry. but it's not just the coal mine jobs. many more jobs in related industries have also been lost and with those jobs, jobs that thing -- jobs in things as diverse as the hardware store, the long john silver's, you name it, are being lost throughout the coal country of ap laicha and virginia. the downturn of -- of ap la cha and virginia. -- the appalachia and viverage. i believe this is critical we work to find ways to provide assistance throughout appalachian coal country all the appalachian coal country and my amendment would go part of the way to help regular store some economic vitality to my district. with that, i reserve the balance -- remained over my time. chip the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise?
3:19 pm
mr. calvert: i rise in reluctant opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: the committee, as the gentleman knows, has included this as a pilot program, to test in a few states how community and economic development can combine with reclamation of mine lands. these will be provided to states with the largest unfunded needs to date. if you expand to include six states this pilot looks more like a program and that's not the committee intent. the committee believes the lessons learned from this pilot will inform about the pros and cons of re-authorizing the underlying law. i want to work with the gentleman we can potentially next year re-examine this. i ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment, i would be happy to work with him in the future. i know the full committee
3:20 pm
member, it's certainly an interest to him to address the needs of his constituents. we're certainly sympathetic. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. fwrivet: mr. chairman, i have no -- mr. griffith: i have no quarrel with the committee, i think it's a great pilot project which is why, i thought it was a brilliant idea, that's why i at least wanted to put this on the table. it's not my habit to offer and then withdraw, sometimes you lose, i understand that is probably the case, but i did want to put it on the table and do appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. griffith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i would just reluctantly oppose this amendment. and yield back the balance of my time.
3:21 pm
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 26, line 13, bureau of indian affairs and bureau of indian education operation and indian programs including transfer of funds, $2,505,625000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 111. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount insert increased by $50,304,000. page 62 line theambing dollar amount insert reduced by $61,304,000. the chair: pursuant to house
3:22 pm
resolution 333 the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a straightforward amendment to ensure local schools within the bureau of indian education have the resources necessary to provide gainful education in quality facilities at a level on par with our peers in other nonbureau funded schools. this amendment is also offered in support of -- and supported by a bipartisan group of my colleagues, including ruzz kramer -- russ, cramer, row key in a, noem and sinema. our amendment redirect funds from the e.p.a. to the indian account and evenly allocated between replacement facilities construction account and the elementary and secondary facilities account. currently more than a third of bureau funded facilities are in
3:23 pm
substandard or poor condition. sizable invests have established direct correlation between conditions and student outcomes. the united states government has trust responsibilities to indian tribes and indian education. this supports the trust responsibility by providing high quality education in an environment that's safe healthy and conductive -- conducive for learning. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank the sparters -- supporters of this amendment. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and i reserve my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i hope there's little doubt that indian country especially indian education is a nonpartisan priority of this entire subcommittee. we're committed to building upon the bipartisan work of the former subcommittee chairman, mike simpson jim moran, and
3:24 pm
certainly the ranking member betty mccollum and all agree we have great needs in indian countriest plirble in education. we were in arizona recently at both the navajo and hoe pee reservations and saw firsthand the needs for education in that country. so though i'm proud of what we've done for indian country in this bill that said, i understand the gentleman's coming from. i recognize there's so much more to do on indian education that can and should be done and so with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the jelleds yields -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman and the ranking member for their help. with that, i'd like to yield a minute to my friend representative rokita of indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. rokita: i thank the chair thank mr. gosar and mr. calvert and ms. mccollum for their help in all of this. this amendment which i support would fund the b.i.e. to the
3:25 pm
administration'sphysial year 2016 qusm unlike that request it's paid for and adheres to our budget caps. this year as the chairman of the early childhood education subcommittee i've had the opportunity to visit several b.i.e. schools in arizona. during these visits i see firsthand the challenges the b.i.e. faces. crumbling school buildings, inadequate technology and internet connectivity. these are all serious channels and they are well documented by my official visits, by committee hearings such as those being done by mr. calvert's subcommittee and mine, by g.a.o. reports and by the media. this increase in funds will help address the challenges by provide regular sources needed to improve the academic achievement and increase graduation rates of native american students that attend b.i.e. schools. like all children this is our goal for our nate i american children as well. so with that, mr. chairman, i look at this as a bipartisan
3:26 pm
issue and appreciate my colleagues' support of mr. gosar's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and my colleague for speaking on behalf of this. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 28, line 14rks construction including transfer of funds $187,627,000. indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to indians. $65,412,000. indian guaranteed loan program account, $7,731,000. administrative provisions, bureau of indian affairs may
3:27 pm
carry out operations of programs directed by -- by direct expenditure. the bureau of indian affairs may contract for service. no funds available for central office oversight shall be available for contracts. in the event any tribe returns appropriations made available this action shall not diminish the federal government's trust responsibility. no funds other than amounts for assistance to public schools shall be available to support the operation of any elementary or secondary school in the state of alaska. no funds shall be used to support expanded grades for any school beyond the grade structure in place at each school in the bureau of indian education school system. the secretary shall continue to distribute indirect cost funds. funds may not be used to establish satellite locations of schools in the bureau's school system except the secretary may waive this prohibition for an
3:28 pm
indian tribe to provide language and cultural immersion educational programs. departmental offices, office of the secretary, departmental operations. $717,279,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: i have amendment, sablan amendment 55 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sablan of the northern mariana islands. page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $5 million. page 38, line 8 after the first and second dollar amounts inert increased i $5 million. the chair: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
3:29 pm
mr. sablan: my amendment increases funding for territorial assistance initiatives managed by the interior department. the assistance benefits the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands which i represent but also the united states territories of american samoa, guam and the united states virgin islands as well as america's allies in the pacific, the republic of palua and the republic of the marshall ilappeds. the assistance will continue to help all these areas to develop economically and become more self-sufficient. much remains to reach these goals. the 2010 census reveal that poverty levels on the islands remain three to five times the national average and median income is only $20,000 compared to $53,000 nationwide. the most recent gross domestic product data for the islands reported by the bureau of economic analysis found that in
3:30 pm
the virgin islands, real g.d.p. declined 5.4% in 2013 and declined 2.4% in american samoa. in contrast, the real g.d.p. for the united states excluding the territories increased 2.2% in 2013. so we've got a lot of catching up to do. and it has been very responsible especially in technical assistance. i'm thinking of the empowering insular communities program helping us move from imported fuels that are costly and make money out of our economies to greater use of locally available energy sources. assessment of classrooms initiative just like the preceding -- preceding amendment this program found only 38% of schools are in acceptable condition and identified specifically those schools where
3:31 pm
there are safety hazards for students. the abc initiative is systematically upgrading that infrastructure so our children have schools that are conducive to learning and safe. developing those human resources is the surest way to raise our economy. . we need to give interior the resources it needs to finish. and the money can be used for this or other territory assistance programs such as the coral reef initiative, brown tree snake control impacting areas negatively affected by the united states immigration policies. all of these programs are works in progress. we should provide more funding for them and technical assistance funding should be focused on programs that the department has already began investing in. and i appreciate the past support of the program and even in this challenging fiscal times, i ask for increased
3:32 pm
funding for fiscal year 2016. i thank you, mr. chairman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition. i rise in -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i thank you. i rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i want the gentleman to know that i understand that the territories would benefit greatly from additional funding. we funded the assistance to territories at the f.y. 2015 enacted levels. we level funded that. as we know, the money is needed, and we know that we have responsibilities in the territories. however the offset right now, we've cut back that particular operation considerably so i would oppose that offset. i would be more than happy to work with the gentleman as we move this process along, along with the ranking member to see if we can't get additional
3:33 pm
funds as we move this process along. but i certainly appreciate the gentleman's intent, but we would have to reluctantly oppose this amendment at this time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: i appreciate the chairman working with me. let me just make a small point here. what this technical assistance money means to us the states have access -- are eligible tens of thousands of federal programs that help states and do one thing or another from social to educational to infrastructure projects. for the territories, there's only 700-some programs where the territories are eligible. there's a huge of difference. so this small part of technical
3:34 pm
assistance money is a program that provides grants to help the territories pick itself up, you know, wipe off the dust and everything. it is just more money. $5 million goes a long way mr. chairman, whether it's fixing the schools that the army corps has already identified. i understand 1,500 school buildings and only 38% of that is $62% of that are not safe and only 38% are declared safe. just like we do for the bureau of indian education, we're asking we increase this money. so i will also work with the chair, mr. chairman, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i yield back and i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the northern marianas. those in favor say aye. those opposed no.
3:35 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- the gentleman from the northern marianas. mr. sablan: i ask for the yeas and nays. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the northern marianas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: has the gentlewoman submitted the amendment to the desk? ms. castor: yes, the castor amendment. the chair: would the gentlewoman submit another copy to the desk?
3:36 pm
3:37 pm
the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i appreciate the fact that the chairman is looking more of putting money in the indian education like mr. gosar's amendment did and the way this bill is -- if the chairman would like to yield to say anything. mr. calvert: more than happy to work with the gentlelady to get additional funding for indian education at anytime in the future, and we can continue to work together to do that. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentlewoman. mr. chairman, i also appreciate the parliamentarians, your patients and the majority's patients white we get another cop -- patience while we get another copy of the amendment. i thank everyone for their
3:38 pm
courtesy. minnesota is a great state. we'd like to have you there so we can see our great lakes. our great water. mr. calvert: could you please ship some of that water to california? ms. mccollum: reclaiming my time and my water, it is -- we'd love to have you there and when the waters very hard, it freezes and then you can try ice fishing. which is a great sport. and mr. chair, i think the amendment's coming to the desk. once more, i thank you very much for your patience. the chair: does the gentlewoman yield back her time? ms. mccollum: i yield back my time cheerfully.
3:39 pm
the clerk: amendment offered by ms. castor of florida. page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1,913,000. page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount insert increase by $1,913,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's motion. the chair: the point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentlewoman from florida and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the house's consideration. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment to restore funding to fiscal year 2015 levels and to make the point that when we help redevelop
3:40 pm
contaminated properties we generate a larger return on investment that lifts our communities back home. my amendment increases e.p.a.'s environmental programs and management account by a modest $1.9 million to be offset by the same amount from the office of the secretary. even with this modest boost, the proposed bill on the floor unfortunately would remain $4 million below the budget request. mr. chairman when a contaminated property achieves a brownsfield designation and grant, local communities and businesses can clean up the property and put the property back into use. this type of economic redevelopment is key to our neighborhoods, communities, rural or urban. it increases property values and creates jobs. with just a little bit of seed money from the e.p.a. through brownfield. 2014 study concluded that cleaning up brownfields leads to nearby residential property
3:41 pm
increases from 4.% to 11%. another 2007 study found an average of 10 jobs are created for every acre of brownfields redevelopment. based on historical data we know that $1 of the funding leverages between 17 and 18 and other public and private financing. i witnessed great success in brownfields redevelopment back home in the first base area. for example, when the existence of the old mercy hospital in midtown st. petersburg was in scombrepar dei due to environmental contamination on the site, the city of st. petersburg and the e.p.a. stepped in to turn the old mercy hospital into a flourishing community health center. the project created 80 jobs, saved existing jobs, created new jobs and it stands now as the johnny ruth clark community health center which is the lynch pen to midtown st. petersburg redevelopment act. in tampa they have redeveloped
3:42 pm
a number of brownfields sites including a site of a closed car dealership. had a very positive impact beyond the health care of thousands and thousands of my neighbors in a severely underserved area. it is one of the primary examples of the growing health fields initiative which targets redevelopment through brownfields to help improve access to health services for our neighbors. the return on investment is so great across america. the congress must invest much more in our communities. and brownfields redevelopment is simply smart policy especially in places where these resources are scarce. it's also a critical part of e.p.a.'s environmental justice efforts, and the justice 2020 action framework when the e.p.a. released the environmental justice 2020 framework, i convened local community leaders across the tampa bay area to solicit their
3:43 pm
opinions and brownfields redevelopment was at the top of their list. we can do better here and i hope as the appropriations process goes on we'll find ways to help communities redevelop with the small seed money through brownfields -- the brownfield initiative. i'd like to thank chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum and i urge my colleagues to support the castor amendment to revitalize our communities back home. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i withdraw the point of order and i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i wish the gentlelady was able to share this amendment with both the majority and the minority in the committee so we could review it. saying i still must oppose the amendment because of the offset, the offset obviously would take money from the secretary and move it over to the e.p.a. and at this time we've used the secretary's office tremendously as an offset already and i'm afraid
3:44 pm
that this may start affecting other programs within the department of interior. so i would have to oppose this amendment, the gentlelady's amendment won't increase the cleanup of brownfield sites. it will only pay for salaries over at the e.p.a. and i believe that we don't need to do any more at the e.p.a. than has already been done. with that, mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. castor: well, this is an important account to be beefed up. remember under the sequester caps and even -- we're $4 million under the budget request even with this amount. now, the secretary's office is the best place to go for an offset. the secretary's account is $452 million above fiscal year 2015 levels, and $389 million above the budget request. and i would put to you that it would be a better investment
3:45 pm
for our communities back home to allow them this little seed money, this little matching money to redevelop properties rather than fund the bureaucracy at the e.p.a. so i urge approval of the castor amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserve or yield back? ms. castor: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i'd urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. castor: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida will be postponed. . clerk will read. the clerk: page 37, line 1.
3:46 pm
administrative provisions. up to $4,000,000 -- up to $400,000 may be retained for administrative provisions. insular affairs, assistance to territories. $85,976,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 282 2. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. plaskett of the virgin islands. a the dollar amount insert reduced by $13,684,000. increased by $13,684,000. the chair: the gentlelady from the sir vin -- virgin islands and a member opposed each will
3:47 pm
control five maines. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plaskett: as one of the congress members representing a territory i'm disappointed to see the underfunding made to the interior environment appropriations bill. aside from the underfunding to environmental protection programs that protect important natural resources and ensure that americans have access to clean water the cuts to this bill come largely at the expense of america's island territories. the virgin islands, puerto rico, guam and the northern marianas have been part of this great nation for more than a century. since then, this cubry has augmented support to critical areas of activity by respected local governments in these territories. this is done largely in part through territorial assistance activity which this bill proposes to underfund by $13,684,000.
3:48 pm
this is unacceptable. funding through interior territorial activities go to many important fingses in these territories like capital improvement praments. -- projects. these capital improvement projects address a variety of infrastructure needs including hospitals schools, wastewater and solid water waste systems. for example, funding thru c.i.p. helped the virgin islands waste management authority complete the repair of severely deteriorated main water line that threatened to leak in nearby ocean water. improvements to critical infrastructure not only benefit the current population of these territories and the businesses that nst in those community bus lay the groundwork to attract new investment to the territory which is promote economic development and receive sufflecy. an example of the importance of this funding to the territories is highlighted in the fiscal year 16 budget request which in my home district the u.s. virgin
3:49 pm
islands proposes to use approximately $2 million to address health and safety deferred maintenance islands identified in the insular assessment of buildings and classrooms initiatives. this is imperative as our schools are not only not structurally sound but are not conducive to a healthy learning environment. many are overrun with mold and have severe structural deficiencies, some of which are over a half century old. the st. croix central high school had to close its doors last year buzz of noxious odors that made students and teachers sick. this recurring incident began midway through the 2014 school year and forced the entire student body of more than 1,000 students to join a similarly populated high school in double sessions for the remainder of the school year this coming fall, the virgin islands government will again close schools on the island of st.
3:50 pm
croix but this time students are three schools will be relocated to other schools for at least an entire school year, maybe longer while the local government works to repair the severely decrepit buildings that house those young people. mr. speaker, there hadn't been a school built in the u.s. virgin islands in the last two decades. the children in my home district as well as the other five territories deserve better. a breakdown of c.i.p. expenditures in 2014 underscores how important this funding is to not only students in our territories but also to our senior citizens as well. construction or repair to schools and hospitals account for nearly half the total amount of c.i.p. expenditures last year. in st. croix our hospital is without an adequate mental health facility and there are few assisted living facilities and a growing aging citizens. the u.s. virgin islands also
3:51 pm
proposes to use $1 million in 2016 c.i.p. funding for structural renovations as a variety of public lie tpwhrishese -- on the islands of st. croix, st. thomas and st. john. these will help provide a safe, secure and comfortable location for students to use library archives and public information. the citizens of these territories are citizens of the united states. we are constitutionally entitled to fair and equal representation and full inclusion by this house as well as by this government. i look forward to continuing to work on this issue and ask for unanimous con sent. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve her time. ms. plaskett: i do. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plaskett: i also want to point out that unlike the state the virgin islands and other
3:52 pm
territories are not part of the formula grants other locations have. we do not receive the same funding for grants, programs that provide technical assistance jobs infrastructure, in fact, today with the announcement of the supreme court while we are thankful for the rest of the united states, with the affordable health care act, we're not included in it to the full extent of the other states. so i'm asking, mr. speaker, that at this time that this body as well as this congress and in fact the federal government look to the virgin islands and look to including us all of the territories, with full inclusion. i ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. ms. plaskett: thank you. the chair: who seeks recognition? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 39, line 21, contact of free association
3:53 pm
$,318,000. administrative provisions including transfer of funds, secretary may transfer discretionary funds for the subsidy cost of direct or guaranteed loans. office of the solicitor,le is rays and expenses $65,142,000. office of the inspector general salaries and expenses $50,047,000. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. page 41, line 12 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. page 102, line 23, after the dollar amount insert increased by $1,500,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee.
3:54 pm
ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chair and thank the ranking and the chairman of this appropriations process for the interior and the environment. for their indulgence and their understanding of how much a part of the lives of americans this legislation is. from my amendment dealing with the culture and history of this nation to that of clean water, clean air, our federal parks, our forestry, this is a vital piece of the livelihood and life of america. among other agencies that the legislation funds is the mythsonian institution which operates our national museums including air and speas, the museum of african art, the national portrait gallery. it also operates the national tri- the national zoo. my amendment is simple. it sends an important message from the congress of the united states to infuse into the people
3:55 pm
culture and appreciation for the respect and holding of wild animals, for the forests, for the number of assets that we should hold very dear. it increases the smithsonian institution by $1.5 million. the zitson's institutions bring the nation's scholars and scientists out of their attic and into their own backyard. in order to meet the -- the zitsonian wants to bring it to the communities and to the people, that worse would be deprived of this kind of cultural exchange. this money is not a lot of money but it is an important statement for those who seek to be connected to the cultural
3:56 pm
history of america. the zitsonian's outreach program served million -- the smithsonian's outreach program serves thousands of americans through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions and sharing of educational resources. the zitsonian -- the smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with smithsonian museums and research centers as well as 144 other institutions across the nation. they support community-based cultural and educational organizations and reaches out to african-american, asian-american, latino americans new americans and all americans from kindergarten to college to our senior citizens. what can we do to help this outreach expand? we can provide this simple amendment of $1.5 million to create more mobile museums. talking about the extensive history that we have. these mobile museums then connect with our museums that we
3:57 pm
have. the african-american museum in houston is one of those. that needs a bridge that the smithsonian has. ast it's a museum that's reached prominence but not the ability to reach a lot of people. this is an opportunity to boost the smithsonian in order to ensure that we have that kind of outreach. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. and i rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. only because of the offset. the offset that we're talking about is taking money from the inspector general's office, which is our auditors. and we desperately need auditors in the federal government. and we -- appropriators are very reluctant to cut the inspector general's office in general. but i want to work with the gentlelady. i recognize her passion to make
3:58 pm
sure that the good work that the smithsonian does gets out to the general community throughout the united states. i'm a big supporter of the smithsonian we've level funded the smithsonian this year obviously we're ormenting under difficult budget constraints but we certainly support what the gentlelady wants to do, we just don't support the offset which she wants to do it with. ms. jackson lee: i think we've had the opportunity to be on the floor together over the years thank you so much, i thank the ranking member and leadership on the committee. my question would be obviously this appropriations process is a bill here in the house and then there's conference. what would be the immediate strategy of working with you on this goal? mr. calvert: if the gentlelady -- ms. jackson lee: i yield.
3:59 pm
mr. calvert: we'll continue to work as the process moves forward. there may be something that happens between a and b and we're -- we may have additional resources, who knows. but we'll certainly work with you to find out if we do and i know that the -- if we can help the smithsonians out, that's top of our list. ms. jackson lee: thank you for yielding. let me -- mr. calvert: happy to yield to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the ranking member and chairman for the work that's been done. it is reaching out and touching museums like the houston african american museum. i would say to museums like that, to allow me to take up the chairman and the ranking member's leadership and begin to look for what may be an extra
4:00 pm
opportunity to infuse dollars to get the culture of america to reach out to all over and with that, in the spirit of collaboration and collegiality i'm going to at this time withdraw in a friendly manner the jackson-lee amendment with a very hopeful commitment to be table help museums like the houston african-american museum and many others that really benefit from this connection. mr. call vrt: i thank the gentlelady for her generosity and -- mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady for her generosity, i'll continue to work with her as the process moves forward and i thank her. ms. jackson lee: thank you. i'll use my own time, i think i have a minute or two, mr. chairman. mr. calvert: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlelady from texas has a minute and a half remaining.
4:01 pm
ms. jackson lee: let me just say in concluding, there are many things that this bill does. i'm hoping we will rid ourselveses of se quester to let it do more and one of the things would be this outreach that brings us together as a nation in a positive way and i might cannot say enough good act sladse about houston museums in general, the buffalo soldiers museum and the houston african-american museum that has a great purpose that i hope that we can address the smithsonian's outreach capabilities. i yield back my time and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and begin to work the process to providing funding to the smithsonan for that purpose. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn and the gentlelady yields back. . the clerk: office of the special trustee for american indians, federal trust programs, including transfer of funds, $139,029,000.
4:02 pm
department-wide programs, wildland fire management, including transfer of funds $804795,000. flame wildfire suppression reserve fund including transfer of funds $92 million. central hazardous materials fund, $10,010,000. natural resource damage aelse isment and restoration natural resource assessment fund $7,689,000. working capital fund $56,529,000. administrative provision, aircraft may be obtain by donation purchase or through available access surplus property. general provisions, department of the interior, including transfer of funds, emergency transfer authority, insert bureau. section 101, appropriations shall be available for transfer for emergency reconstruction of
4:03 pm
aircraft. emergency transfer authority department-wide, section 102, the secretary may authorize the expenditure for the suppression or emergency prevention of wildland fires. authorized use of funds. section 103. appropriations not to exceed $500,000. authorized use of funds, indian trust management, section 104 appropriations shall be available for expenditure for indian trust management and reform activities. redistribution of funds, bureau of indian affairs, section 105, the secretary is authorized to redistribute any tribal prorte allocation funds. ellis governors and liberty islands, section 106, the secretary is authorized to acquire land for the purpose of operating facilities and the
4:04 pm
support of visitors to the islands. outer continental shelf inspection fees, section 107, the secretary shall collect a nonrefundable inspection fee. bureau of ocean -- ocean energy management, section 108, the secretary may transfer funds between the successor offices affected by reorganization. contracts and agreements for the wild horse and burrow hold fag silts. section 109. the -- holding facilities, section 109. mass marketing of salminids, section 110, the fish and wildlife service shall implement a system of mass marketing stocks, exhaustion of administrative review, section 111. public law 112-74 as amended. wild lands funding prohibition,
4:05 pm
section 112, none of the funds may be used toismment secretarial order -- used to implement secretarial order 113-10. section 113, public law 112-74 is amended. volunteers and parks, section 114, section 10231-d of title 54 united states code is amended. contracts and agreements with indian affairs, section 115, indian affairs may record obligations against accounts receivable. heritage area, section 116, public law 106-291 is amended. sage grouse. section 117. none of the funds may be used to write or issue, pursuant to section 4 of the endangered species act of 1973 offshore pay authority extension section 118, pluckly a 11-76 as amended. onshore pay authority extension, section 119 of
4:06 pm
public law 113-76 is amended. ivory section 120, none of the funds may be used to draft any new or revised regulation or order that prohibits within the united states the possession or transportation of ivory. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. beginning on page 59, line 9 strike section 120. the chair: purr superintendent to house resolution 333 dur suent to house resolution 333 -- pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you. last week the u.s. fish and wildlife service destroyed a ton of illegal ivory. most of it was seized from a philadelphia antique dealer named victor gordon.
4:07 pm
for at least nine years, gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly killed african elephants in violation of u.s. law and the laws of the countries where the elephants were poached and the ivory stolen. how did he get away with this for so long? the ivory was doctored so that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the enforcement of the african elephant conservation act. a law that was passed in 1989 to end the commercial import and export of ivory. while a ton of ivory was confiscated there is no way to know how much gordon had sold during the previous decade or where it is now. all we can do -- all we know for certain is, all of it was illegal, all of it is nearly impossible to distinguish from antique ivory and anyone who bought it from gordon resells it or buys it from a new owner is contributing to the ongoing
4:08 pm
slaughter of elephants and the criminal trafficking of ivory that supports organized crime and terrorism. this has got to stop. and how many morovicker to gordons are out there? -- how many morovicker to gordons are out there -- more victor gordons are out there? 100 elephants are killed every day in africa. the photo we wanted to enlarge was a photo of an african he will fapt that had been killed -- of an african elephant that had been killed and its head decapitated and the ivory butchered out of its head. upon review it was decided that it was too graphic and disturbing for the chamber and for the floor. and we didn't bring that one. while much of this poach something fueling ivory in africa a black market exists in the united states.
4:09 pm
the only way, and i repeat, the only way to keep u.s. citizens from being involved whether knowingly or unknowingly, in this elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to close the enforcement loopholes and eliminate the commercial import-export -- import, export and trade of african elephant ivory in this country. that is precisely what the obama administration is trying to do, by proposing new rules to limit ivory trade in the united states. instead of assisting in this important cause, house republicans have slipped a rider into the appropriations bill to kill the new rule before it's even finalized. my amendment would remove this rider, ending commercial ivory trade does not mean taking away people's musical instruments, as some have said. iron handled pistols or family heir looms -- heirlooms. museum collections scientific specimens and sport hunter
4:10 pm
trophies will also be allowed to move freely. further, items containing very small amounts of ivory can still be bought and sold. but profit earring off elephant parts will no longer be allowed. nor should it be. as long as ivory has monetary value, people will kill elephants to get it. eliminating value will eliminate demand and that will reduce wildlife poaching and trafficking. i understand the administration's proposed ivory rule is due out very shortly. and in the interest of giving everyone a chance to review that rule, i will withdraw this amendment today. however, i will not hesitate to return with a similar amendment later if that's what it takes to remove this damaging rider from the bill. i ask, mr. chairman unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection,
4:11 pm
the amendment is withdrawn. mr. grijalva: thank you mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 60, line 1 reissuance of final rule, section 121 the secretary shall reissue the final rule published on december 28, 2011. northern long eared bat. section 122. the secretary shall amend the interim rule pertaining to the northern long eared bat. section 123, section 14.21-a-16 title 50, code of federal regulations, is amended. title 2, environmental protection agency, science and technology, $704,918,000 to remain available until september 30, 2007. -- 2017. the chair: the clerk will suspend.
4:12 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. speaker i have an amendment at the kess . the chair: the clerk -- desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $1,625,000. page 62, lines 8 and 13, after each dollar amount insert, increase by $1 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, this amendment which i'm offering with my -- mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you mr. speaker. this amendment which i am offering with my good friends, mr. keating and mr. cicilline, will provide $1 million to the southern new england estuaries geographic program. this program was funded at $5
4:13 pm
million last year and has been incredibly successful at leveraging resources, bringing stakeholders together and increasing efficiencies. estuaries are essential for a healthy coastal ecosystem, they provide benefits of great economic and ecological significance, including vital nesting and feeding habitats for aquatic plants and animals. yet they are increasingly affected by impacts of human activity along our coasts. these funds will be used to continue efforts to protect and restore our coasts and estuaries which are critical to our environment and our economy. so the southern new england estuaries geographic program supports projects and science to restore the health of southeastern new england's estuaries, watersheds and coastal waters and ensure access now and in the future to resilient, self-sustaining ecosystems and associated populations of our fish and shell fish. so i'd like to take a moment to
4:14 pm
say that the account that we are reallocating from, e.p.a., science and technology, is also critically important. and while we would have liked to offer an amendment increasing the southern new england estuaries geographic program to its full funding amount of $5 million they were neither sufficient nor appropriate -- there were neither sufficient nor appropriate offsets in this bill to do so. i hope as our appropriators go to conference with the senate they're able to restore the full funding amount of $5 million for this important program and i'd also like to thank congressman keating for being a tremendous partner in ensuring that our -- along with congressman cicilline, that -- ensuring that our southern new england estuaries are restored and stay healthy for generations to come. with that i'd like to thank chairman calvert, ranking member mccollum and their staffs their work on this bill and i urning my colleagues to support -- urge my colleagues to support this funding of the southern new
4:15 pm
england estuaries geographic program and it is now my pleasure to yield to my good friend and colleague from rhode island, to speak on the bill. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank my colleague and friend for yielding. i also would like to express my gratitude to mr. keating who unfortunately could not be with us today, for his hard work on this important issue, and thank my colleague from rhode island for his eloquent words. mr. speaker, the estuaries in rhode island and massachusetts play significant -- face significant environmental challenges. many shared by estuaries across the country. these challenges include rivers and streams that are disconnected from the landscape the loss of critical wetlands, the impact it's of centuries of -- impacts of centuries of development and aging infrastructure. southern new england estuaries are especially threatened by these challenges. yet despite the arm that -- harm that we know as being done to our estuaries, southern new england was the only geographic region in this bill which saw
4:16 pm
all of its estuary funding eliminated. whime some geographic regions were underfunded compared to 2016 requests, most requests were either met or in some cases increased. inexplicably it was only southern new england that was singled out for complete elimination of funding for next year. this would restore a modest $1 million for the program, at conference we hope full fund something restored. the southern new england watershed has experienced more than 400 years of ecological degradation. which is further exacerbated by the effects of climate change. rivers and waterways have become disconnected from the watershed, which has led to the absorption of nitrogen and other pollutants from sources such as septic systems, treatment plants and storm water runoff. the funding provided to these geographic programs allows
4:17 pm
for runoff. in fiscal year 2015, more than -- in fiscal year 2014, more than $6 million was awarded tonary began set bay. it included an educational program for residents on the island to facilitate site visit tots measure 200 shoreline rights of way to determine any needed levels of improvement to public access. programses like these are proven effective. thenary gain set bay was awarded an environmental award for outstanding contributions on behalf of southern new england's public health and natural environment. these collaborative efforts throughout the southern new england region with continued funding will help to support projects to protect ecological habitat, foster self-sustaining ecosystems and protect wildlife. federal collaboration and investment is essential to
4:18 pm
helping local communities apply for and receive funding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cicilline: i thank my colleague from rhode island and the gentleman from massachusetts for their work on this issue. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition but don't oppose the amendment. i would be happy to work with the gentleman and urge acceptance of this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for his support of the amendment as well as my colleague and mr. keating. this is an important amendment important for protecting our ecosystems and i -- i yield back and urge passage. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the
4:19 pm
ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to the clerk will read. the clerk: page 61 line 21 environmental programs and management. $2,474,289,000. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida, page 6 rk line , after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2,212,000, increase by $2,212,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control fave minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: i want to thank chairman calvert and his staff for working with me on this
4:20 pm
amendment. it simply states an increase and decrease of the same amount for the environmental program and management account within the environmental protection agency. more specifically it seeks to remove and then reapply $2.2 million from that account. the intent behind my amendment is simple. it is to put the house on record as supporting a final funding amount of $27,310,000 for the national estuary program and coastal waterways. currently the report accompanying this bill calls for $25,098,000 for the national estuary program and coastal waterways, $2,212,000 below both the senate's proposed appropriations level and the president's request for fiscal year 2016 hence the amount specified in my amendment. the national estuary program coastal waterways subaccount does important work including work in my state especially on the atlantic coast. it addresses ocean acidify case,
4:21 pm
seeks to remove coastal water sheds, furthers the national estuary program's restoration goals and assists in the implementation of the very important gulf of mexico hypoxia action plan. last large area tchailed dead zone off louisiana that literally stinks. it has no fish. it has no recreational opportunities. it has no fishing. it is a scar on the face of the earth. part of the funding for this program is used to try to overcome the hypoxia action, situation that's arisen off the coast of louisiana that threatens to spread not only to texas and alabama, not only to mississippi, but also to the coast of my state of florida eventually if we do nothing about it. the estuary regions of the united states comprises 12% of the land area of the united states but contain 43% of the u.s. population and provide 49% of all u.s. economic output.
4:22 pm
the economic value of coastal recreation alone in the united states, beach going, fishing, 1/3 watching, snorkeling, diving and so on, has been conservatively estimated to be between $20 billion and $60 billion annually. clear think -- clearly the $2.2 billion that i'm seeking will result in dramatic returns to the american economy and enhance quality of life for the american people and eliminate that scar on the face of planet earth that exists off the coast of louisiana and should never be allowed to spread. again, mr. chairman, i know that you support this amendment and i'm thankful for your support. with that in mind i'll stop talking before i lose your support and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i yield back the balance of my time.
4:23 pm
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentleman will designate which amendment. >> page 62, line a the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. amendment number 9. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mooney of west virginia. individual 62, line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. page 62, line 19 after the dollar amount inincreased by $1 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from west virginia and a member opposed each will control five
4:24 pm
minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to the f.y. 2016 interior appropriations bill that will help strengthen transparency and oversigh at the environmental protection agency e.p.a. my amendment simply provides $1 million in additional funding for the office of inspector general at the e.p.a. i think chairman ken -- i thank chairman ken calvert for working with me on this amendment. under the current administration, the e.p.a. has waged an all-out war on jobs in the second district of west virginia and in communities across america. with this backdrop i think it is critical that we strengthen oversight and transparency at the e.p.a. taxpayers deserve to know what's going on behind the curtain. the office of the inspect jor general plays a critical oversight role within the e.p.a.
4:25 pm
it is the independent office that works diligently to root out waste, fraud and abuse. for example, a may 28, 2015, report found that two separate e.p.a. employees were viewing pornography at work for up to six hours a day. and they were paid in the neighborhood of $120,000 a year while doing it. the same report found that renee paige who at the time was director of the e.p.a.'s office of administration, allegedly sold jewelry and weight loss pills out of her office. but she didn't stop there. she hired not one, not two, but 17 family members and friends for paid internships at the e.p.a. these are just two examples of the incredible abuses of public trust and of taxpayer dollars that occur at the e.p.a. without rigorous oversight from the inspector general these abuses might never have been exposed. my amendment provides additional oversight funding without
4:26 pm
increasing the budgetary impact of the f.y. 2016 interior appropriations bill. we pull the money from the office of public affairs which is the office responsible for promoting the administration's radical environmental agenda and use it instead for oversight. i encourage my colleagues to cast their vote in favor of my amendment. i would like to thank the chairman. mr. calvert: i'm happy to support this amendment and appreciate your bringing ited up and encourage everyone to adopt it. mr. mooney: thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman yield back? mr. mooney: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
4:27 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mooney: i have an amendment, number 11. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mooney of west virginia, page 62, line , after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. page 132, line 4, after the dollar amount insert increased by $2 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from west virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. mooney: thank you this amendment would strike $2 million for n funding there the e.p.a. office of policy and transfer those funds to deficit reduction account. the office of policy is low catted within the e.p.a. office of the administrator and is the primary policy arm of the agency or what i've been calling the regulatory nerve center. funding for this office directly supports this administration's radical regulatory agenda that's putting a an -- an alarming number of my constituents out of
4:28 pm
work and they're not shy about et. the head of e.p.a.'s off of policy on october 13, 2014 boasted to a group of new york university law students that his office quote coordinates the process through which all of the e.p.a.'s rules are developed, including the clean power plan. while the so-called clean power plan is projected to increase energy costs by as much as $479 billion other the next 15 years. for my constituents in the beautiful second district of west virginia that means an average electricity price increase of 12%. this is something we cannot afford. yesterday before this chamber passed the rate payer protection plan which will stop the clean power plan, but the office is coordinating more than just the clean power plan. they issue about 150 new regulations each year this office is right at the center. another rule that deserves
4:29 pm
attention is the e.p.a.'s proposed ozone standard. the national association of manufacturers nound the regulation could reduce the united states' g.d.p. by $207 billion annually leading to 2.9 million fewer jobs between now and 2040. it's clear that the e.p.a. under this administration will continue to promote their radical environmental agenda through an enormous number of rules and regulations. we have to slow this process. that's why i propose this amendment to cut the office of policy funding by $2 million. so i encourage my colleagues today to cast their vote in favor of my amendment. i'd like to thank the chairman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> the gentleman's amendment
4:30 pm
would cut $2 million from the office of policy and program put the savings into the so-called spend regular ducks account. ms. mccollum: if enacted, it would cut an already bare boned bill and further erode our environment. i'm concerned that this cut could have great influence on what this policy division does in its relationship in working with states and divisions within states, community assistance and its research division. i'd also point out to my colleagues that the spending reduction account has never been enacted into law in the four years it has been proposed and so there really isn't an account, i know of that's been authorized where this fund could go. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and keep the office of policy able to work impactfully with our states and local communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields.
4:31 pm
mr. mooney: i yield time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i agree with the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption. mr. mooney: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady -- by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. page 62, line , after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $20 million. page 79, line 17, after the dollar amount insert increased by $20 million. page 80 line 19, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $20 million.
4:32 pm
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed each will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. tipton: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i'd like to thank chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum for their collaborative efforts in putting together this bill that carefully and thoughtfully allocates limited resources in order to conserve and restore our nation's precious natural resources. as you know, states across the nation especially those in the west face widespread drought deteriorating forest health condition, all of which increase risk of catastrophic wildfires and tragic loss of life and property. furthermore these forest health conditions and the wildfires wreak havoc on species' habitat recreational economies, critical infrastructure and clean, abundant water supplies. in 2014 the forest service and the department of interior agencies spent over $1.5 billion in fire suppression costs to combat fires on more than 3.5 million acres of
4:33 pm
private state and federal lands. these suppression costs will only continue to rise if we do not appropriately address critical issues of wildfire preparation, including hazardous fuel management activities. for far too long we've been addressing the problem after the fact. the course of action has led to decades of declining health of forests and a staggering increase in wildfires. in fiscal year 2015, congress provided $75 million increase for hazardous fuel management and i applaud chairman calvert and my colleagues for spear heading these efforts but we can do more. so today i'm offering a simple amendment that will bolster the wildfire management system account on the national forest system lands by $20 million, allowing the forest service to be able to expand an ongoing work on hazardous fuel reduction and fire mitigation projects, because quite simply, the cost of proactive healthy forest management is far less than the cost of wildfire
4:34 pm
suppression and cleaning up devastating aftermaths. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and at this time i'd like to be able to yield two minutes to a co-sponsor of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. pearce pearce thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate -- mr. pearce: thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman from colorado bringing this amendment. in the west we're finding that our states are being burned up, they're burned up because the forests are simply full of fuel that have not been cut, have not been logged for the last 20 to 30 years. those are internal decisions that were created by an inappropriate listing of the spotted owl declaring that timber production was the reason the spotted owl was going extinct. the forest service a couple of years ago reversed that saying, the fish and wildlife service a couple of years ago reversed that saying logging has nothing
4:35 pm
to do with it. our damage is done. our forests are chock full of fuels and small sparks set off tremendous blazes. the wind always blows in the west and we find these raging wildfires that weren't in existence 30, 40 and 50 years ago. because nature was pretty well in harmony. so the idea of the gentleman is simply to put more money over into the fuels reduction account that's a commonsense solution that will save us in the west, save our valuable resources, save our valuable forests and that will make sense for the country. so i support the amendment and i would urge its adoption and yield back. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman. i now yield to our chairman. mr. calvert: i certainly agree with you, we need to improve the condition of our national forests. my home in california is going through an exceptional drought. colorado's just not sending enough water down the colorado river. so you need to help us out a
4:36 pm
little bit. but this hazardous fuel issue is a huge issue in my area, as you know, we have a blight issue that's just killing trees because we have too many trees in the forests. it's weakened the forests. so this is a good amendment and i certainly urge its adoption. mr. tipton: thank you mr. chairman. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: i wish to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much mr. chair. while i certainly appreciate the challenges that so many western states are facing right now with the drought and very frightening wildfires i need to oppose this. unlike many -- most programs in h.r. 2822, especially within the forest service, the base hazardous fuels program received a $10 million increase above f.y. 2015 enacted level.
4:37 pm
there is a reduction in h.r. 2822 to the biomass grant portion of the hazardous fuels program but i see nothing in this amendment that addresses that cut. we would all like to see increases in funding for many programs funded by the bill. chairman calvert has certainly been a strong advocate for robust wildland fire program including hazardous fuels. coming from the fire prone state of california, as he just mentioned, he knows as well as anyone that our fire program needs support and he has funded that accordingly. to provide what would be a record level of funding for hazardous fuels, the sponsor of this amendment would cut an additional $20 million from the e.p.a. which is why i feel it's important to oppose this amendment. this bill already severely cuts the e.p.a.'s main operating account by $141.4 million or 5%. i strongly oppose an amendment that takes more money from the already starved e.p.a. the very air we breathe and the
4:38 pm
water we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions made in this bill. and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this nation. i know cutting e.p.a. is an easy target for many of my colleagues across the aisle, but i want to ensure my colleagues -- i want to make sure that they understand what this amendment would cut if it was adopted. this account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle. including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, the cleanup of toxic waste sites, pesticide licensing and radiation prevention. e.p.a.'s work goes beyond the political talking points of scary regulations and it is necessary to keep vulnerable populations safe from environmental disasters. it's beyond reason to cut the very federal employees that have ably responded to the disasters such as the b.p. oil spill and the coal ash spill in kingston, tennessee, in 2008.
4:39 pm
i do not support gutting the e.p.a. even further and i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. the chair: does the gentlewoman yield back? ms. pingree: i yield back my time. mr. tipton: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado has one minute remaining. mr. tipton: thank you mr. chairman. current environmental protection agency likes to applaud itself that it is a champion of clean air clean water. for those of us who live in the west, this is not a political talking point. this is reality. if you care about clean air, think about the carbon that is emitted -- emitted from wildfire, think about the devastation to wildlife habitat as our forests burn, think about clean water as that ash is washed down through the ravines into very narrow watersheds, to where we have endangered species residing as well. i'd submit mr. chairman, that we actually put action through our words. in terms of being proactive, in terms of addressing forest health.
4:40 pm
if you care about clean water if you care about endangered species, if you care about clean air this is an opportunity to actually allow us to be able to move the ball forward, to be able to address what the environmental protection agency says it is about. that is clean air, clean water, this amendment will help achieve that goal and i encourage my colleagues to adopt it. with that i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 62, line 16 office of inspector general, $40 million to remain available until september 30, 2017. buildings and facilities $34,464,000. $34 lrks 467,000 hazardous
4:41 pm
substance superfund, including transfer of funds, $1,0 8,769,000. leaking underground storage tank trust fund program $91,941,000. inland oil spill programs $17,944,000. state and tribal assistant grant $2,979,829,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcnerney of california. page 65, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $ 61 million -- $861 million. after the dollar amount insert increase by $432 million. page 65, line 10, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $429 million.
4:42 pm
the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will have -- will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you mr. chairman. although i have a plan to -- i had planned to withdraw my amendment, i feel it's important to discuss the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds and the benefits that these funds provide to our nation. droughts are becoming more severe, which is putting an incredible strape on our water supply in california and in my district, where we are experiencing a historic drought for the last four years. we have to manage our available water in smart and efficient ways. we lose an estimated $7 -- seven billion gallons of water a day from leaking pipes, with some cities losing as much as 30% of their water. at the same time these cracks
4:43 pm
expose the water supply to an increasing number of water borne diseases and contaminants. this means utilities face considerable challenges as they try to provide both adequate and safe drinking water to families and businesses. upgrading our infrastructure would save trillions of gallons of water a year and make our water safer to drink. but the best part is that according to the american water works association, there are already enough shovel-ready water projects around the united states that would create work for more than 400,000 americans, including almost 90,000 direct construction jobs. these are jobs that would be welcomed with open arms in our towns and cities across the united states. our nation's water infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. according to an infrastructure needs survey by the e.p.a., nearly $335 billion with
4:44 pm
repair, upgrades and replacements are needed by water systems in the next 20 years to continue providing safe drinking water and protecting public health. almost $300 billion is needed to repair and replace wastewater and storm water pipes and treatment plants. furthermore, the national association of clean water agencies and the association of metropolitan water agencies estimates that utilities will need to spend $448 billion by 2050 just to deal with climate change impacts. considering the significant water infrastructure needs our country is facing, the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds have never been more important. these funds help finance projects that handle and treat domestic sewage and storm water and deliver drinking water to
4:45 pm
homes and businesses. these infrastructure investments also create jobs and have a positive impact on the economy, well beyond the amount spent. unfortunately the bill proposes significant and i want to repeat that, significant reductions to drinking water s.f.r.'s' and over a $400 million cut in the clean water act sewage treatment s.f.r.'s. . cutting funds by this much means a greater number of deserving community projects will not be able to get done this approach will only imperil our infrastructure and communities that it helps foster. congress should commit to providing the necessary funding to maintain and upgrade our nation's ailing water
4:46 pm
infrastructure and make that our the green infrastructure is a critical part of that process. my state of california is doing its best to cope with a resere -- severe and ongoing drought and congress must do its best to fund and support the needs, infrastructure and water quality enhancements that preserve our water resources and create a sustainable system. i withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserves. pursuant to house resolution
4:47 pm
333, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. calvert: thank you mr. chairman. my hometown of flint, michigan, has endured decades of job loss and population loss through the slow, painful erosion of our manufacturing base. previous trade deals population shift bad land use management, trade deals like nafta, flex, have accelerated job losses in my hometown. that's had the effect of reducing local revenues, creating lower housing price less local services, less investments in things that matter the most like infrastructure including our water system. and it costs money cities don't have. the drinking water state revolving loan fund was designed to assist communities with maintaining and improving water
4:48 pm
infrastructure. this fund provides critical support to ensure safe, clean drinking water is available if our -- in our communities. many of us represent communities however, that have outstanding loans issued under the drinking water revolving loan fund from prior to 2009 and those loan funds are ineligible for certain types of help because of the timing of those loans. in flint, our current water system loses over a third of they have treated water due to decades-old delivery systems before it even reaches the faucets in homes and businesses. this city has relied on the drinking water revolving loan fund to improve this system. but the challenge and cost is immense. the cost is even more daunting when the city is working to pull itself out of an economic downturn that has lasted not just a few years but has lasted decades.
4:49 pm
so we should as congress give these communities the tools that they need to build bridges and roads, to fix their aging water systems, and bring mostly -- most importantly economic development. in my -- my amendment would be an important step to doing this. first, it would allow current revolving loan funds to be used to provide loan forgiveness to cities that have outstanding loans regardless of the date of the loan of the occurrence of that loan. prior to 2009, those loans are not eligible for loan forgiveness loans incurred after 2009 are actually eligible for forgiveness. so the first option, we would like to see those loans pre-2009 loans eligible for forgiveness. second, the option to use new funds to provide loan forgiveness on prior loans is
4:50 pm
limited because these cities have had -- i'm sorry this amendment would limit that loan forgiveness to cities that have had significant financial problems due to population loss. cities that had a population loss of more than 15% since 1970 and also have a high rate of abandoned and vacant buildings. basically the cities that are in no position right now to finance improvements to their system just because of the level of abandonment the level of population loss and the revenue loss associated with it. allowing financially distressed cities like flint to have loans forgiven will bring some stability to these communities and allow them to bert -- better serve their residents. i ask for support for this amendment to help communities across the country, like flint, the backbone of the american economy in the 20th century so they can again become leaders in the 1st century. if we don't reinvest in these places and find ways to do that, we'll have a difficult time
4:51 pm
having them join the economy in a way that really makes a difference for the people who live there. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. calvert: mr. chairman i insist on my point of order. i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutions legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment in a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. kildee: i understand the gentleman's point of order and will continue to work with him and any other member of this body to help me find a path forward to help communities like this community of flint that's
4:52 pm
struggling to deliver clean water to its residents. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring new determinations such as levels of population, loss of housing vacancy. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 71, line 10, administrative provisions environmental protection agency including transfer of funds and rescission of funds. the administrator may award cooperative agreements to federally recognized indian tribes to assist in federal environmental programs. the administrator is authorized to collect pesticide reck stration service fees.
4:53 pm
the administrator may assess fees. the administrator is authorized to transfer up to $300 billion. the science and technology environmental protection program and management and leaking underground storage tank frusttund -- trust fund program accounts are available for the construction. provide the cost does not exceed $150000 the administrator shall base agency policies regarding air emissions from biomass. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. boyer of virginia, strike lines 8 through 23. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes this chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. byer: my amendment would
4:54 pm
correct the a-- many beyer: my amendment would correct the statement -- mr. beyer: my amendment would collect the statement that carbon my -- carbon my biomass is neutral. it is inappropriate to assume that all forms of biomass are neutral. these could have serious consequences for wildlife habitats and our ability to combat climate change in coming years. numerous studies underscored that using some types of forest biomass, particularly slow-growing trees could increes for decades. a study by the constituent of massachusetts showed the climate of burning wood were worse than coal for 25 years and worse than natural gas for 90 years. to know what types of biomass are truly low carbon, scientists need to assess them and treating
4:55 pm
all biomass as neutral is risky. it would lead to a bomb in use of forest biomass for energy. the result on log -- the resulting logging would have dire consequences and it would drive up the price of pulp and other low grades of wood. in my state, they have concerned it would encourage virginia power to burn wood from forests to meet its emission reduction obligation. diminish already converted throw existing coal plants to run on biomass fuel and has a center to burn up to 20% biomass for fuel. i shear the concern that virginia will be known as the state that harvests forests to reduce dependence on coal rather than moving to sources that
4:56 pm
truly reduce carbon like solar or wind. i worry about the consequences of this. we've seen under the european emissions trading system where biomass has a zero emissions traiting, european companies have invested millions to convert coal plants to plants that burn wood pellets leading to incredible demand for wood. earlier this month they said europe's policies have led to more trees being cup down as wood pellets were being export. tpwhorn dozen pellet factories have been in the southeastern u.s. along with special port facilities in virginia and georgia. demand for wood in europe is so robust that wood pellet exports doubled from 2012 to 2013 and are expected to nearly double again this year. we should not create artificial demand to meet scientifically unsubstan shated goals. it's critical to make sure that it's scientifically accurate
4:57 pm
before we implement policies that might add carbon pollution rather than reduce it. i withdraw this amendment but do so urging my colleagues to support policies that are scientifically accurate and realize that not all forest biomass is car bhn neutral and the e.p.a. should take that into consideration. i look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member. and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. i yield back. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3 line 24. $ million permanently rescinded. the administrator is authorized to make grants to federal reck -- federally recognized indian tribes. title 3, department ofing aical churl, forester is vess. forest and land range research. $277,577,000. state and private forestry
4:58 pm
national forest system including transfer of funds $1 rblings 490,093,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. benishek of michigan, page 75, line 14rk insert after the dollar amount the follow, redeuced by $2 billion. page 76, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the following increase by $2 billion. -- by $2 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 2822, the fiscal year 2016 interior and environment appropriations bill. the chairman, my district covers
4:59 pm
nearly half the state of michigan, includes three federal forests. these forests are a major vacation destination where people not only in my district but -- for people not only in my district but from districts across the country. yet many were sur -- arrived to find the road to their favorite fishing spot or hiking trail has been arbitrarily closed by the forest service with no warning and no input from the local community. the last thing people want to do when they travel to the woods of michigan is to learn about obscure policies of the national forest service a service that treats the forests like their personal property rather than a public place for all to enjoy. it's important to note that the outdoor economy contributes over $5.5 billion in wages and $194
5:00 pm
-- and 194,000 jobs to michigan most of which are in my district. my amendment is an opportunity to demonstrate to the forest service that their focus should be on making our forests more open and accessible to the american people. in practice, the amendment would reduce spending for the national forest system's vegetation and watershed program by $2 million and transfer those funds into the capital improvement and maintenance fund. you might ask yourself, what does that have to do with opening forest roads? i'll tell you. the forest -- according to the forest service, when work is necessary to open the road for access, they use the capital improvement fund. when they're working to close a road due to environmentalists who don't want anyone to visit they use the vegetation and watershed line item my amendment is simple. it gives more dollars to the forest service to keep more roads open rather than closed. the c.b.o. says this would save taxpayers $1 million for fiscal
5:01 pm
year 2016. mr. chairman, today i'm standing up on behalf of my constituents in my i'm standing up for those want to use the forests responsibly. who want to teach their grandkids to hunt, fish, snowmobile. they want to enjoy nature. furthermore, i'm standing up today for the small businesses that employ families throughout the outdoor economy. for example, i recently visited extreme power sports in gay already where they sell is a -- gaylord where they sill a variety of -- sell a variety of gear. they sell to users all over the country who come to enjoy the trails and forests in our state. and beyond. in addition to businesses, like extreme power sports, the hotels and restaurants around northern michigan are supported by those who come to visit our forests year-round. healthy, accessible fofrlts are important for our way of life -- forests are important for our way of life in michigan and across the united states. all of our constituents deserve improved access to the forests
5:02 pm
and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman for raising concerns about how the forest service is managing its roads. the same concerns exist around the country in other states. idaho as well as other states too. the chairman calvert and the committee would be happy to work with you on this issue as the interior bill moves through this process. and if there's no objection we would be willing to accept the amendment. i yield back. benoit benoit i'll reserve -- mr. benishek: i'll reserve. is there any opposition? the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. benishek: i yield back. the chair: seeing no one seeking time, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to.
5:03 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. calvert: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r.
5:04 pm
2822, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2822 and has come to no resolution thereon.
5:05 pm
the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 533, an act to revoke the charter of incorporation of the miami tribe of oklahoma at the request of that tribe and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a privileged concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution 19, resolved that when the senate recesses or adjourns on n'diaye from thursday, june 25 2015, through friday july 3 2015,
5:06 pm
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on tuesday, july 7, 2015 or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution which ever occurs first. and that when the house adjourns on any legislative day from thursday, june 25, 2015, through friday, july 3, 2015, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday july 7 2015, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2-a, the majority leader of the senate or his designee, after concurrence with the minority leader of the
5:07 pm
senate, shall notify the members of the senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a, when the senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader or his designee, the senate shall again stay adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. section 3-a, the speaker or his designee, after consultation with the minority leader of the house, shall notify the members of the house to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling, pursuant to subsection a, when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader or his designee, the house shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is -- the
5:08 pm
gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker i express my deep disappointment that the house will adjourn without having concluded its business. charter authority for the export-import bank is set to expire this coming tuesday. should congress fail to re-authorize it. which apparently we are going to fail to do. shutting down the bank puts at risk tens of thousands of jobs american businesses whose exports are supported by the bank's financing mechanisms. everybody knows that a bill to re-authorize the bank has the votes to pass in this house. everybody has known that the charter authority to back up loans by those who would buy goods from american workers expires at the end of this month. the speaker of this house has
5:09 pm
said that jobs will be lost shortly after we fail to do this act. which we are apparently going to fail to do. it is the will of the house and ought to be reflected by a vote of the house that this charter be renewed. and once we send it down the hall, such a bill will pass the senate. who said so? senator blunt, who used to be the majority whip, and majority leader, and minority whip in this house. before leaving to go home to our districts, we ought to re-authorize the bank and provide certainty mr. speaker, to businesses and their workers who depend on it to level the playing field against foreign competitors. there are 60 such banks excuse me 85 such banks located in 60 countries, with whom we compete . this will diminish at least for
5:10 pm
a short time our ability to compete in international markets. that will cost, as speaker boehner said jobs in the short-term. at the same time i want to say that my friend from mississippi representative thompson, noticed a resolution that was referred to the committee on house administration today. mr. speaker, i believe that that resolution deserves to be considered in the committee without delay. and i hope it will be. in the aftermath of the horrific and racially motivated murders of nine innocent people in charleston last week, americans across the country are taking a long overdue, critical look at the practice of allowing confederate symbols of hatred slavery, segregation to remain on prominent display in our public places. there is no public space more visible and more important than this united states capitol building. mr. thompson's resolution would
5:11 pm
authorize the speaker to remove mississippi's flag, the only one to include the battle flag of the confederacy, from the capitol complex until such time as the state of mississippi selects a new flag, free from a legacy of bigotry,ll move swiftly to design a new flag that more accurately reflects their pride and diversity tolerance and quality. -- equality. there is no reason why any member or staffer, especially those who suffered the horrors of slavery and segregation, should have to see that symbol in the tell le to -- temple to liberty that is our capitol. so, mr. speaker, i'm disappointed that the house is adjourning without having completed its task for the june work period. and without having shown the american people their congress can do what it has been sent to do support job growth promote
5:12 pm
justice and achieve results for those it serves. mr. speaker if i thought continuing my objection would lead to the swift enactment today or tomorrow of the export-import bank i would object. i do not believe that that would be the result and therefore i will shortly withdraw my objection. but with a plea to the majority party that they bring to the floor very shortly after we return the re-authorization of the export-import bank and that the committee on house administration give prompt consideration to the resolution of the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, and i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation with s withdrawn. without objection, the -- is withdrawn. without objection, a motion to
5:13 pm
reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, with our 239th independence day around the corner, i rise today to -- i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing what makes our nation the greatest country in the world. by celebrating patriot week later this yeesh -- year. mr. bishop: in 2009 we became the first legislative body to recognize patriot week.
5:14 pm
since then five states and countless private organizations have participated in celebrating our founders and our great americans who furthered the cause of liberty. patriot week pays tribute to influential americans from george washington to martin luther king jr. it celebrates our values from equal protection under the law to limited government and it remembers our most important events, from the passage of the constitution in 1787 to the ratification of the 19th amendment to many other events that collectively define our country. mr. speaker my resolution recognizes how many of these -- each of these events advance the principles we hold to the highest regard. and encourages our schools, our government agencies states and private employers to participate, as well as take time to remember and learn about these events that are so important to our history. patriot week begins by remembering those who died in the attacks of september 11 2001, and those who sacrificed
5:15 pm
to save others. it ends on september 17 by celebrating constitution day and honoring those who risked everything to establish this republic for which we all have the privilege of serving. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my patriot week. thank you i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? . ms. gabbard: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: a week ago a man walked into a church in south carolina and in cold blood gunned down nine worshipers. his actions were motivated by ignorance and hate. throughout history and also in present day, unfortunately there has been so much terror and suffering caused by ignorance and hate in order to truly transcend racism, we must do
5:16 pm
more than remove racial slurs from our national vocabulary. what's actually needed is a change of consciousness. in hawaii my home state, that consciousness is known as the aloha spirit, the consciousness of love and respect for all others regardless of differences such as race, religion gender, or nationality. understanding this truth is the path to peace. i'd like to quote mahatma gandy who said there must be -- gandhi who said there must be recognition of the soul, and this recognition must amount to a living faith and last resort nonviolence does not avail those who do not possess a living faith in the god of love. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one meant.
5:17 pm
>> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to take a moment to recognize the truly inspirational individual from my district. carolina robertson is a 12-year-old gerl from potters hill, north carolina. we met last october at an event in bullaville. she was born with a rare chromosomal disorder. despite her diagnosis, she's maintained a positive outlook on life. choosing to live every minute of every day. last year, carolina -- caroline was crowned a dream angel by north carolina outstanding little miss panelent. she is using her crown to help raise awareness for handicapped children throughout north carolina and earlier this year carolina -- caroline host add fundraiser -- hosted a fundraiser called bikers tea and tiaras. there were over 35 crown titles in attendance including miss
5:18 pm
north carolina 2014. caroline has had to overcome more adversity in her 12 years than most of us in a life team. she's a true inspiration to all of us around her and i'm honored to know her. i would like to thank caroline for her work as a dream angel and i know she will continue to accomplish great thention in the years to come. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for within meant. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it seems like every day there is a startling headline about a new concession to iran and the nuclear negotiations. mr. dold: we are undeniably cascading further and further from where these talks started just 19 months ago. with the latest deadline for the deal only five days away, i fear
5:19 pm
and expect even more damaging concessions to the iranians are on the way. it doesn't need to be this way. we don't have to accept it, and we must make sure that our voices continue to be heard by the administration on this historic issue. we know that upon researching a deal, any deal there will be a full-on p.r. blitz to try to sell this agreement. when that happens, we must stand strong and avoid the temptation to simply go along with the thrill of the deal. instead of getting swept up in the momentum, we must not flinch from the simple foundational idea that we have dedicated ourselves to all along, preventing iran from having any path to a nuclear weapon. we can do it if we stick together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence
5:20 pm
requested for mr. payne of new jersey for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. been a beg day over at the supreme court, and a big day for the constitution as the constitution has taken a rather profound hit.
5:21 pm
and i understand the rules, mr. speaker. rules make clear we will not impugn anybody's integrity in office up here. so i'm not talking about an individual. i'm talking about how completely physical honest -- dishonest disingenuous, and how much affront to the constitution and pure candor the majority's opinion is at the supreme court. nothing is more of an indictment against the majority opinion than at the end of the opinion itself. the majority indicted themselves with their own word. at the end of the majority opinion, the majority says, in a democracy the power to make the law rests with those chosen by
5:22 pm
the people. our role is confined -- more confined, then quotes from marbury vs. madison, quote, to say what the law is, unquote. the court today goes on to say that is easier in some kashiwadas than in others, but in every case we must respect the role of the legislature and take care not to undo what it has done. a fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. congress passed the affordable care act to emprove health insurance markets not to destroy them. if at all possible we must interpret the act in a way that is consess tent with the former and avoids the latter. section 36-b can fairly be read consistent with what we see as congress' plan, and that is the reading we adopt. the judgment of the united states court of appeals, fourth circuit, is affirmed. that majority opinion is an
5:23 pm
indictment of the majority. the constitution is worthless absolutely worthless when we have a majority of the supreme court that makes up law or in this case says, you know what, we know what congress passed, we have read it. we get it. it makes exceedingly clear that unless a state sets up a state exchange for health care, then that state will be punished by not getting subsidies. and that was debated, that was included and the majority of the house and senate, without a single republican vote, not a single republican vote, as the former chair of the ways and means told some of our members, we don't need your vote.
5:24 pm
we don't want your input. they did it as one party, jamming this down the throats of the republican party and the majority of the american people. that's why they lost the majority in november of 2010. they made it very clear if you don't set up a state exchange don't get the subsidies in your state. god bless all the states that stood up and said, no, this is wrong. a majority of the american people didn't want this. you passed this without any enput from nearly a majority of the constituents that are represented by republicans. you didn't care that it was as partisan a bill as ever passed in congress. you didn't care. you forced it. it's bad for americans. we are not going to help you by setting up a state exchange. yes, we understand the law's very clear. our state doesn't get the
5:25 pm
subsidies from the federal government. those are called bribes to be more literal. our state won't get the bribes that you throw back at us. that came from our own taxpayers. if we don't set up the state exchanges. we understand that. so what happens? the people that passed that bill and the president that helped pass that bill and that forced it through and signed it realized they made a major mistake. and rather than come and get republicans to fix the disaster they had created, the president end kated he has a pen and a phone -- indicated he has a pen and a phone decided that allows me to make law, create new law and change law completely that i have already seened into law because i got a pen and phone. i can just change it upon my whim. and the president basically did
5:26 pm
through his administration they decided that they would set up federal exchanges and even though the law was very unequivocal those states get no subsidies. they decided we better start giving them subsidies. if i sound sensitive about this, mr. speaker, it's because i am. this disaster of a health care bill that costs so many of my constituents the health ensures they liked because they were lied to every time they were told by anybody if you like your policy you can keep it. that was a lie. when people were told nobody that's in this country illegally will ever get any ensures under obamacare, that was a lie. and when they were told if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, no matter who told it to them, that was a lie. they were all lies. we find out later they talked
5:27 pm
about it within the white house and decided the best thing to do is not to tell everybody that they stand a good chance of losing their own health insurance and losing their doctor and losing their hospital, losing particular policy that may keep them alive, let's don't tell them that. let's just say if you like your doctor, you like your health care you can keep it. so the bill passed, it was a bad bill. and now we have a supreme court that has entered into the particular shub and -- fiction and the fraud that this opinion is somehow acting like the law was equivocal when it was very unequivocal. god bless an toe nen scalia,--- antonin scalia clarence thomas. the minority opinion, as it says here. i have a copy of the whole opinion including the dissent. justice scalia with whom justice
5:28 pm
thomas and just tiss athlete kwlow joined in dissenting. the court holds when the patient protection and affordable care act says, quote exchanges established by the state, unquote, it means, quote, exchange established by the state or the federal government unquote. that is of course quite absurd and the court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. the dissenting opinion also states in answer to the question of whether someone who buys ensures on an exchange established by the secretary gets the tax credit he says, quote, you would think the answer would be obvious. so obvious they would hardly -- there would hardly be a need for the supreme court to hear a case about it. in order to receive any money
5:29 pm
under section 36-b, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through quote exchange established by the state, unquote. secretary of health and human services is not a state. further down words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is quote, established by the state. further down, quote, the plain obvious and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious narrow hidden sense that nothing but the exy againcy of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute powerful intellect will discover. that quote came from lynch vs. stephens company. under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the government should lose this case. but normal rules of
5:30 pm
interpretation seem always to yield to override -- overriding principle of the present court, colon, the affordable care act must be saved. oh, mr. speaker the trouble this nation is in when we have a president who makes law at the sound of his voice, the stroke of his pen, without going through congress. and then that's aggravated exponentially by a supreme court that enters into the charade. as the court said, page 5 of its dissent adopting the court's interpretations means nullifying the term, quote, by the state unquote. not just once but again and
5:31 pm
again throughout the act. and it goes on to point out that the term by the states mentions seven times throughout the bill and that the majority on the court they could care less about the constitution they could care less about their oath. they feel their job is to uphold anything that this president and the former democratic majority sent to them, regardless of how badly it requires them to ax the constitution. page 12 of the dissent says for its defense of the
5:32 pm
indefensible, the court, talking about the majority turns to the affordable care act's design and purposes. well, obviously they'd need to turn to something because the law was very clear. to get the subsidies a state had to set up an exchange. page 13 of the dissent, it says, having gone wrong and consulting statutory purpose at all, the court goes wrong again in analyzing it. page 15, dissent says compounding its errors, the court forgets that it is no more appropriate to consider one of a statute's purposes in isolation than it is to consider one of its words that way. page 16, the dissent says worst of all, for the repute of today's decision, the court's reasoning is largely
5:33 pm
self-defeating. and it goes on to explain why. page 18, the dissent says this, the courts' -- the court's decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpreterive distortions it takes in order to fix a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. that philosophy ignores the american people's decision to give congress quote, all legislative powers unquote, innumerated in the constitution. citing article 1, section 1. they made congress, not this court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. this court holds only the judicial power, the power to pronounce the law as congress has enacted it. we lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the
5:34 pm
people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they disease like the solutions -- dislike the solutions that we concoct. we must always remember, therefore, that our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it. and the dissent actually cites precedent for that very language. trying to make its judge empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the court asserts that its decision merely insheer -- ensures that the affordable care act operates the way congress meant it to operate. first of all, what makes the court so sure that congress meant tax credit to be available everywhere? and those are great questions that the dissent asks, even though they are rhetorical. so the supreme court struck a blow for tyranny today and i
5:35 pm
predicted this for quite some time. because when you have someone who solicitor general under the obama administration and who has the job of advising, well first of all defending legislation and defending acts that the administration wanted defended in court, but of course part of that means as any good lawyer will tell you, that attorney that defends you in court must give you advice about that which he or she may have to defend in court. so either we had a solicitor general go before the senate and lie that there had never been any discussions about the affordable care act about obamacare in the presence of the solicitor general, or the
5:36 pm
solicitor general was completely incompetent and everybody that voted for that solicitor general should have their heads examined. because either a lie or incompetence should have been enough to keep a former solicitor general from going on to the supreme court of the land. didn't happen. that person went on the court. it also is reprehensible for judges -- justices on the supreme court to flaunt the law disobey absolutely the most critical laws designed to the court in order to participate in an opinion in which they
5:37 pm
want to change the law. so apparently, since the court -- supreme court didn't come down with a decision regarding same-sex marriage today that should be coming out next week. and so far there's been no notice that the two justices that perform same-sex weddings would be disqualifying themselves as 28 u.s.c. section 455 says. with your indulgence, mr. speaker, i have a chart. so 28 u.s. code section 455 says very clearly in a part there's an a part that would
5:38 pm
disqualify judges or justices and there's a b thart that may as well -- part that may as well. but a is a certainty. any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the united states shall disqualify himself , that can be male or female, in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. so that's the law. and when we have two supreme court justices that so far have given in indications of anything but that they are going to intentionally knowingly violate that law and participate in a majority opinion, then we have to wonder how much longer this little experiment in democratic republic will last. i would submit not much longer.
5:39 pm
the laws of moses, the bible, helped found this country. when all seemed lost and nothing appeared to be agreeble to a majority in the constitutional convention, they took a recess to go worship god at the reformed church in philadelphia. we still have part of what the preacher prayed what he spoke. seemed to make a real difference. because they came back and as alexander hamilton noted someone not noted for being spiritual he noted that clearly the finger of god was involved in bringing together people that could not agree in such an incredible document.
5:40 pm
so we turn our back once again today as a majority of the supreme court decision did on the clear meaning, clear statement of the law. so far i hope and pray they'll have a change of heart and not disobey the law in order to try to change law, overriding state constitutions as it may. i hope and pray we'll have -- they'll have a change of heart, they'll disqualify themselves, anyone on the supreme court who clearly not just might reasonably be questioned but they clearly were biased and partial when it comes to same-sex marriage. hopefully they'll disqualify themselves and we'll get an opinion by a more objective court. but if they don't we're
5:41 pm
looking at a constitutional crisis of incredible proportions. does a country have to follow a law created out of whole cloth by a majority of unelected judges who violate the law itself in order to create new law? i think the answer is no. you don't have to follow that kind of law. but there's no question that the persecution of christians who practice their religion as set out in the bible will be forced to subject themselves to persecution as this administration already has shown. it doesn't matter if you're a nun and you've devoted your entire life to helping the poor
5:42 pm
and the down ready toen -- downtrodden, you're a little sister of the poor, it doesn't matter to this administration, they're going to drag you through the muck, through the devastation of having to go to court all because you happen to believe what the founders believed, the huge majority since, heck, over 1/3 of the signers of the declaration of independence were actually ordained christian ministers, and then the great work by churches to force the constitution to mean what it said, so that slavery was eliminated, the great work of an ordained christian minister named martin luther king jr. in pushing the issue of civil rights for one and all so that one day hopefully we can have people judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. but the things martin luther
5:43 pm
king jr. believed in, that he was ordained and preached, the things those abolitionist churches believed with all their hearts if the supreme court does what the indications are they will likely do, they would be persecuted for their beliefs. our very founders would be persecuted for their beliefs. this isn't about slavery. we did away with that. it is tragic. no one, no matter what their sexual preference is should be discriminated against. but when it comes to marriage it is the building block, the foundational building block established by nature itself, by nature's god, by the law of moses, the moses imprint that exists above my head here in this chamber, that exists on
5:44 pm
the southern wall of the chamber of the supreme court. and it's the law as jesus laid it out regarding marriage when he quoted moses. we're coming in to some difficult days and i'm afraid this decision today that mocks the law, both case law and the written law, we're coming in to some difficult days. i want to recognize my friend, mr. rothfus, for such time as he may consume. mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has six minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: i'll recognize my friend such time as he may consume. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to the gentleman for yielding. i heard the discussion going on about today's supreme court decision and i too am very troubled by what i read today. to me there are a couple of big issues at play here. one is accountability. how this congress five years ago rammed through legislation
5:45 pm
without reading it we all remember the famous line, pass it to find out what's in it. anded american people continue to find out -- and the american people continue to find out what's in it. i heard the president talking today about this law being woven into the fabric of the country. what's being woven into the fabric of the country are higher premiums, higher deductibles less choice, more washington, more bureaucrats more forcing people to violate their consciences, that's not the way we need to be going. and to see how the supreme court, for the second time, has allowed really a lack of accountability, when we saw in the nfib case how they said, oh, it's not a penalty, it's a tax, there are people in this chamber who argued for the affordable care act, saying there's no taxes here. but then the supreme court absolved them of that responsibility
5:46 pm
satisfying it is a tax. we'll keep it in place. here today clear language clear language that subsidies would not go -- would go to only those exchanges established bethe state. there is a serious problem here and it's not just with congress not being held accountable for the laws it passes, but there's a separation of powers eshoo here. -- issue here. to see another branch of government envade the law makeling responsibility -- envade the lawmaking responsibility that -- invade the lawmaking responsibility that this congress has. the court's decision reflects the philosophy that judges shood endure whatever interpretestify distortions it tax in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. that philosophy ignores the american people's desession to give congress, quote, all legislative powers, enumerated in the constitution. that's what the constitution
5:47 pm
says. they made congress, not this court, responsible for meaking both laws and mending them. this court -- making both laws and mending them. this court holds judicial pow e. the power to announce the law as congress enacted it. just as the people lack the ability to throw us out that's the supreme court, out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. this is the congress' responsibility to amend the laws not the supreme court. the dissent continues, rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the court should have left it to congress to decide what to do about the act's legitimateation of tax credits for state exchanges. the courts enciesence on making a choice that should be made by congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages
5:48 pm
congressional latitude. mr. speaker, it is the congress' job to meak law, it is the court's job to interpret the law, not to rewrite the law as it did in the nfib case. not to rewrite the law as it does today. he thank the gentleman for raising these very serious herb shoes -- i thank the gentleman for raising these very serious issues. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i appreciate the gentleman's observations. frankly, mr. speaker, i knew when i stood with mr. rothfus in the senate chamber recent years past in support of a filibuster i would enjoy standing with hem on other occasions. i appreciate so much his observations. mr. speaker, i just want to fin herb with this observation from john adams. 1776, july, he's writing to abigail. the last paragraph he says, you
5:49 pm
will think we transported with enthusiasm, talking about the declaration of independence but i am not well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this declaration and support and defend these states. yet through all the gloom i can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. i can see that the end is worth more thanal the means. that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we may regret it, which i trust in god we shall not. for this to stand as a country a democratic republic, as created, it takes courage and it takes integrity and we didn't get that from the supreme court today. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman
5:50 pm
from new jersey, mr. smith, for 30 minutes. mr. smith: thank you so very much. mr. speaker, the deadline is bearing down on us for the president's nuclear agreement with iran. so at this moment congress must send the administration a strong message in order to be acceptable any agreement must bar every iranian path to nuclear weapons. this means the deal must last for decades. there have been a lot of reporting of stopgap deals that would try to restrict iran in the short-term. or giving it a blank check after 10 years. sch an agreement would be absurd, mr. speaker. given iran's long-standing quest for nuclear weapons and its government genocidal anti-semitism, i and the vast majority of my colleagues in congress would never accept such a bad deal. iran has also has to dismantle its krnt nuclear infrastructure
5:51 pm
and turn over nearly all of its stockpile of uranium. iran free first -- prefers to nearly disconnect its 19,000 centrifuges. that's unacceptable. coming from the iranian government with its murderous threats to annihilate the state of israel and obsessive hatred of jews worldwide, it's estimated that centrifuges could be reconnected in a matter of mere months. so they must be dismantled and the core should be removed from their heavy water reactor. it also means there can be no lifting or reduction of sanctions until the international atom eck energy agency or iaea certifies that iran has complied with its commitment under the agreement. and i aea -- iaea must be granted access to any and all suspected sites.
5:52 pm
this access must be unempeeded, mr. speaker. meaning that iaea must be able to condkt enspecials at military sites as well. they must be given access. any time, anywhere. iran must also fully account for its past efforts to develop nuclear weapons. unless it does so, there is no way to establish a base line from which to measure its current capacities and potential future violations and responsibly gauge a break out team. mr. speaker, these are minimum criteria. in order to get congressional approval, any deal the president presents the congress will have to have met that. the nuclear agreement review act gives congress the authority to review any agreement with iran and the past joint resolution barring any statutory sanctions
5:53 pm
release. the administration and the iranian government need to know that the vast majority of my colleagues will be as firm as i am in insisting on them. i am certainly prepared to vote against any agreement that does not meet these criteria. mr. speaker, the obama administration has shown itself far too weak in dealing with iran. for example, last week secretary kerry said that the united states is quote, not fixated on iran's explaining its past behavior. a significant backtracking on his early enciesence on this crucial point. in fact, throughout june we have been reading disturbing reports of administration weakness in the negotiations on a whole range of issues from demanding access, to potential nuclear sites, to tsengling a willingness to repeal nonnuclear
5:54 pm
related sanctions. just yesterday five of the president's top former iran advisors wrote an open letter warning that the agreement quote, may fall short of meeting the administration's only standard of what constitutes a good agreement. the letter outlined concerns about concessions at the same time as the identifya toll la -- ayatollah khomeini appeared to back away from other preliminary understandings. there are many other signs of the administration's weakness, mr. speaker, in its dealings with iran. fundamentally refuses to speak truth truths that are obvious to everyone that the iranian government has made itself the enemy of the united states and that genocidal enemy of the state of israel. and that or goal must always be to prevent it from awiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons --
5:55 pm
from acquiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons now or into the future. a nuclear iran would be a grave threat to our country and exy tension threat to israel our closest ally. that is, mr. speaker intolerable. the administration seems to no longer recall that iran is the leading sponsor of hezbollah and hamas. mr. speaker, the case of a paragraphs yo is another sad sign of the administration weakness towards iran. abadini is an american set zen. he was in iran in 2012 visiting family and building an orphannage when he was teaken prisoner. he had -- taken prisoner. he had been given permission by the iranians to do just that. 12 years before he had converted to christianity and later was involved in the home church movement in iran. knowing about his conversion and
5:56 pm
earlier engagement in home churches iranian authorities approved his 2012 trip. approved his orphannage building and then imprisoned him. he has been emprisoned ever since then and has suffered immensely from beatings that have caused enternal bleeding solitaryry confinement, and more. his wife who is also an american, has been a heroic champion for her husband and their two children have also sfered. i have chaired two hearings where we have heard from her who told the compelling story of her husband, her love for her husband, the gross injustice he has been forced to suffer, and it's time the administration made this a priority and a very very important matter in the nuclear negotiation. the administration's not doing
5:57 pm
inform to secure his release, no doubt about that. the administration has done little more than raise his race and those of other american prisoners on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations because it sees prisoners as a sideline issue. this is an american citizen, unjustly imprisoned now for over 1,000 days and tortured in iran. the administration has a few marginal conversations with iranian officials and considers that good enough. it is deeply disturbing. it ought to be an essential priority. mr. speaker it's also very alarming, an alarming sign, that we might expect the administration to present us with this agreement when we return to session in early july. that is why congress' responsibility to be prepared, to mane tain a much firmer line
5:58 pm
on the outcome of these negotiations when we review the agreement that the administration seems to be teaking. mr. speaker, i'd also like to bring the attention to my colleagues the -- a company of excerpts from today. it was released today. the state department's human -- country reports on human rights practices for 2014 which says in pertinent part i quote, the most significant human rights problems with severe restrictions on civil liberties including freedoms of assembly, speech religion, and press. limitations on citizens' ability change the government peacefully through fair elections and disregard for the physical integrity of persons whom authorities are unlawfully detained tortured, or killed. other human rights reported problems included
5:59 pm
disappearances cruel, enhuman and degrading treatment or pun herbment, including --punishment, including sanctioned am two passion and flogging. politically motivated violence and detention. with enstandses of death in custody arbitrarily, arbitrary arrests and lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes incommunicado. tened empunity of the security forces -- continued immunity of the security forces, trial sometimes resulting in excuses without due process, lack of an independent judiciary, political prisoners and detainees, ineffective emplementation of civil judicial procedures and remedies arbitrary interfeerns with privacy family -- interference with privacy family, home and correspondent. the very restrictions on freedom of speech including the internet and press, harassment and arrest of journalists censorship and
6:00 pm
media content restreckses, severe restreckses on academic freedom, severe restrictions on freedom of assembly. that's just a few of the catalog of horrors being emposed upon iranians and people like our own american citizens are being held in custody like this pastor. mr. speaker, i thank the chair. i do yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the house will relieve a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 793, cited as the boystown centennial commemorative coin act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
6:01 pm
from new jersey seek recognition? >> pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 19, 114th congress, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to concurrent resolution 19 114th congress the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 7,
6:02 pm
on sunday night at 7:45, historian h.w. brand recrount -- bronze recounts the life and career of america's 40th president, ronald reagan.
6:03 pm
on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night a lit a.f.l. 9:00, commemorating the 00th anniversary of the magna carta. brenda haled on how the document influenced both countries from the rights to liberty and property to limits on executive power. sunday, the french sailing ship brought its representative marquis de lafayette to america in 1780 and we were in yorktown to cover the welcoming ceremony of the replica of that ship and hear from its crew and officials. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people, you know. i believe the psychoanalysts
6:04 pm
should be on the couch themselves. on the other hand, when i meet people i don't judge them on whether they have a firm handshake or good eye contact. i try to will be to what they say. you don't learn anything when you're talking, you learn a great deal when they're talking. >> one of the great tradgities -- tragedies of richard nixon, he was not self-aware. he did have a psychiatrist a guy, an internist not technically a psychiatrist, and he later said he was careful not to have nixon think he was analyzing him. but he went to the doctor because he had psychosomatic illness in the 1950's and he was given mild therapy. so even though he went to one he, hated psychiatrists and was always denouncing them and he was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realist exway. one of the reasons, he insisted i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the
6:05 pm
great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very unself-reflective and this hurt him because his lashing out at enemies is what destroyed him. >> evan thomas, author of "being nixon: a man divided" talks about the victories an defeats of nixon, focusing on the stories associated with our 37th president. sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> the supreme court ruled today that subsidies for health insurance should be available to all americans who qualify. a lawsuit was filed to challenge the subsidies saying the affordable care act only allowed subsidies for people who buy health insurance on state-based exchanges, not the millions who buy insurance on the federal healthcare.gov exchange. in a 6-3 decision, the supreme court disagreed. after the verdict was announced president obama spoke in the rose garden, saying the health care law he signed in 2010 is,
6:06 pm
quote, woven into the fabric of america. president obama's remarks coming up here on c-span, followed by oral arguments from the case earlier this year. president obama: good morning, everybody. five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate we finally declared that in america health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all. over those five years, as we've worked to implement the affordable care act, there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks, i remember clearly.
6:07 pm
but as the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working. it has changed and in some cases saved american lives. it's set this country on a smarter, stronger course. today after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. this morning, the court upheld a critical part of this law. the part that made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. if the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded, millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars' worth of tax credits taken from them. for many insurance would have become unaffordable again.
6:08 pm
many would have become uninsured again. ultimately everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that's not what we do. that's not what america does. we move forward. so today is a victory for hardworking americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in the changing economy because of this law. if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. something that has covered millions of young people so far. that's because of this law. if you're a senior, or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. something that's saved nine million americans an average of $1,600 so far. if you're a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else, even if you've had cancer or if your husband had heart disease
6:09 pm
or just because you're a woman. your insurer has to offer free preventive services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care, because of this law. because of this law and because of today's decision, millions of americans who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of health care plans that cost less than $100 a month. and when it comes to pre-existing conditions, someday our grandkids will ask us, if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick, because that is something this law has ended for good. that affects everybody with health insurance, not just folks who got insurance through the affordable care act. all of america has protection it
6:10 pm
didn't have before. as the law's provisions have gradually taken effect, more than 16 million uninsured americans have gained coverage so far. nearly one in three americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today. the uninsured rate in america is the lowest since we began to keep records. that is something we can all be proud of. meanwhile, the law has helped hold the price of health care to its slowest growth in 50 years. if your family gets insurance through your job, or you're not using the affordable care act, you're still paying about $1,800 less per year on average than you would be if we hadn't done anything. by one leading measure, what business owners pay out in wages and salaries is now finally growing faster than what they spend on health insurance. that hasn't happened in 17
6:11 pm
years. and that's good for the workers. and it's good for the economy. the point is, this is not an abstract thing anymore. this is not a set of political talking points. this is reality. we can see how it is working this law is working exactly as it's supposed to. in many ways this law is working better than we expected it to. for all the misinformation campaigns, all the doomsday predictions, all the talk of death panels and job disruption, for all the repeal attempts, this law is now helping tens of millions of americans, and they've told me that it has changed their lives for the better. i've had moms come up and say mitigating circumstance son was able to see a doctor and get
6:12 pm
diagnosed and catch a tumor early and he's alive today because of this law. this law is working. and it's going to keep doing just that. five years in, this is no longer about a law. this is not about the affordable care act. legislation or obamacare as a political football. this is health care in america. and unlike social security or medicare a lot of memps still don't know what obamacare is beyond all the political noise in washington. across the country there remain people who are directly benefiting from the law but don't even know it. and that's ok. there's no card that says obamacare when you enroll. but that's by design. for this has never been a
6:13 pm
government takeover of health care, despite cries to the contrary. this reform remains what it's always been a set of fair rule -- fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in america more affordable more obtainable and more about you. the consumer. the american people. it's working. with this case behind us let's be clear. we've still got work to do to make health care in america even better. we'll keep working to provide consumers with all the tools you need to make informed choices about your care, and keep working to increase the use of preventive care that avoids bigger problems down the road. we'll keep working to boost the steadily improving quality of care in hospitals. bring down costs even lower. make the system work even better. already we've seen reductions
6:14 pm
for example, in the number of readmissions in hospitals. that saves our society money, it saves families money, it makes people healthier. we're making progress. we've got to keep working to get more people covered. i'm going to work as hard as i can to convince more governors at state legislatures to take advantage of the law puttle to -- politics aside expand medicare and cover their citizens. we've still got states out there that for political reasons are not covering millions of people that they could be covering, despite the fact that the federal government's picking up the tab. we've got more work to do. what we're not going to do unravel what's been woven into the fabric of america. my greatest hope is that rather
6:15 pm
than keep refighting battles that have been settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together and make health care in america even better. three generations ago we chose to end an era when seniors were left to languish in poverty. we passed social security and slowly it was woven into this fabric of america and made a difference in the lives of millions of people. two generations ago, we chose to end an age when americans in their golden years didn't have the guarantee of health care. medicare was passed. and it helped millions of people. this generation of americans chose to finish the job. to turn the page on the past
6:16 pm
when our citizens could be denied coverage just for being sick. to close the books on a history where americans had no hope of finding decent health care and had to hang their chances on faith. we chose to right -- to write a new chapter where in a new economy, americans are free to changer that jobs or start a business, chase a new idea, raise a family, free from fear. secure in the knowledge that affordable health care is there for us and always will be. and that if we get sick, we're not going to lose our home. that if we get sick, that we're going to be able to still look after our families. that's what america is, we look out for one another we root for
6:17 pm
one another's success. when we strive to do better and to be better than the generation that came before us and try to build something better for generations to come. that's why we do what we do. that's the whole point of public service. so this was a good day for america. let's get back to work. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]
6:18 pm
>> king vs. burwell. >> this is a straightforward case of statutory con scrux instruction. >> would you please back up, before we get to that situation as you know, each plaintiff or at least one plaintiff has to have a copy of questions. i did not get the questions. there's a declaration stating, i am not eligible for health insurance from the government which is a question of whether they're eligible for coverage. >> yes. one of those is mr. hearst who would have to -- i would refer you to the joint appendix, page
6:19 pm
42, where this is the goth's recitation of facts, where they make it clear mr. hearst would have to spend $750 of his own money as -- because of the i.r.s. rule. mr. hearst was a veteran for 10 months in 1970. he's not eligible for any veterans' service because if you serve -- health services. if you serve -- >> i'll ask the government this if they agree with you. >> the government never disputed this. of course there has been fact find bigalower courts in an adversarial system. i don't believe the court does its own -- >> i don't think it was brought up in the lower court. >> if i could make one further point on this, justice ginsburg. even if you were technically eligible, which he's not there's an i.r.s. rule 26 c.f.r. 1.36-b-2-ii, which says work the
6:20 pm
usual clarity of the i.r.s. code making clear that you would only be receiving subsidies if you have actually enrolled in veterans health services. justice ginsburg: the two women i think one of them was going to turn 65 and n june which would make her medicaid eligible. mr. car vin she would turn 65 in late june. by shir ewe -- virtue of the i.r.s. rule she had to spend $1rks 00. justice ginsburg: you said she'd turn 56 in late june. mr. carvin: right now she's obliged to have insurance. you have to have insurance for
6:21 pm
nine months of the year. as of april 1, she will be subject to the penalty which would be -- justice ginsburg: i'll ask the government if they agree with you on that. i think if there's a question for whether she would qualify for an exemption from the individual mandate even if she received a tax credit in which case the tax credit would be aloud. mr. carvin: again i refer you to the joint appendixing that was the government's argument, we didn't want to get into a factual dispute about it because of such clear standing. justice ginsburg: you to have toest tably the standing. mr. carvin: that's true. only one plaintiff needs standing and both plaintiff hearst and plaintiff -- justice ginsburg: i don't want to detain you on this anymore but i will
6:22 pm
ask the government. mr. carvin: the only provision in the act which either authorizes or limits subsidies says in plain english that the subsidies are only available through an exchangest establish by the state under section 1311. >> if you're going to -- justice breyer: i've read that. this statute is like the tax code. more than it's like the constitution. there are defined terms and the words you just used concern a defined term. as i read the definition, the section definitions, et says quote, the term exchange means quote, an exchange established under 1311 and 1311 says an
6:23 pm
exchange shall be a government agency etc., that is established by a state. those are the definitions. then you look for 1321. and 1321 says if a state does not set up that exchange, then the federal quote secretary, shall establish and operate such exchange. so since the secretary is to establish and operate such exchange, the only kind of exchange to which the act refers which is, quote, an exchange established by a state under 1311. that's the definition. so the statute tells the secretary set up such exchange. namely a 1311 state exchange. there's nothing else in this
6:24 pm
statute. so that's what they're talking about. so what's the problem. mr. carvin: as the hon -- as your honor said it tells the secretary to establish such exchange. what it turns on is if the state or secretary. justice breyer: it's the same terminology, namely the terminology in the definition is, an exchange established by a state. mr. carvin: that's the phrase. but 1311 creates ambiguity, because it doesn't say all 1311 get subsidies, it says exchanges established by the state not established by the government
6:25 pm
so it creates -- >> can i offer you a simple daily life example which i think is linguistcally equifflebt to what the sections here say that justice breyer talking about. i have three clerks their names are will, elizabeth and amman dasm my first clerk, i say, will, i'd like you to write me a memo. and i say liz beth i want you to edit will's memo once he's done. then i say amanda, if will is too busy to write the memo, i want you to write such memo. my question is if will is too busy to write the memo and amanda has to write such memo, should elizabeth edit dethe memo? mr. carvin: if you write that
6:26 pm
money money gos if will rights the memo -- justice kay began: you run a different -- justice ka began: if elizabeth department edit the memo, she wouldn't be performing her job. i sadse elizabeth you edit will's memo but of course if amanda writes the memo, the instructions carryover. elizabeth know what is she's supposed to do. she's supposed to edit amanda's memo too. mr. carvin: in your chambers, you're agnostic as to whether will, elizabeth or amanda writes it but congress was not agnostic as to who establishes the exchange. >> if i had those clerk the same
6:27 pm
clerks and amanda wrote the memo and i received it and i said, this is a great memo who wrote it would the answer be it was written by will because amanda stepped into will's shoes? mr. carvin: that was my first answer. but i'll go to the second answer, you are agnostic as between will and amanda but notting as noist as between states and federal exchange. justice kagan: what you're saying is that the answer to the question depends on context. it depends on an understanding of the law as a whole and whether they were agnostic. i'll agree with that. so the four or five words in my example, it's obvious that elizabeth should edit the memo it's the whole structure and context of the provision that
6:28 pm
suggests whether those instructions carry over to the substitute isn't it? mr. carvin: if you examine these words in the con tegs of the act as a whole because our argument becomes stronger for five reasons. to respond to justice breyer's point he, says such exchange co-notes that it's the same person doing it. but look at the provision on territorial exchanges. it says territories can establish such exchanges and then it says and shall be treated as a state. justice breyer: it's not a question of connotation it's a question of the noteation. what does that mean? it means the federal government, the secretary is establishing a thing for the state and what is the thing? the thing that it is establishing for the state is
6:29 pm
defined as an exchange established by the state. that person from mars who is literal, which i usually am not, but a literalist i think would have to read it that way. but if you're not a literalist, well, i guess you could read it that way. now you want to go into the context, you want to go into the context, at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker. mr. carvin: do the exchanges fall apart, nobody can buy on them there are no customers employers don't have to pay penalties as long as they use just people from verge but one maryland person comes in you know those arguments. how is does the context spoth you? mr. carvin rment: under a literalist or nonliteralist interpretation saying the secretary can establish such exchange. look at a parallel provision
6:30 pm
where they use the same language and they said and shall be treated as a state. that language which is notably omitted from 1321 and the basic statutory construction, interpret the same phrases the same way and it showed congress knew how to create equivalents between nonstate exchanges and state exchanges if and when it wanted to. justice sotomayor: i'm a little concerned with how you envision this provision working. we're saying the h.h.s. exchange can't be for the state. the choice the state has is establish your own exchange or let the federal government establish it for you.
6:31 pm
that was the choice. if we read it the way you're saying, then we're going to be the -- read the statute as intruding on the fall-state relationship because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges. you'll say they can't be coerced, it would go back to what justice breyer was talking about. in those states that don't -- citizens don't receive subsidies, we're going to have a death spiral that this system was created to avoid. states are obligated insurers are obligated to make sure that in their states, whether they're part of this program or not, that they have guaranteed coverage chathirn -- that children are covered until
6:32 pm
they're 26 and that they base their cost on community ratings. cost arises on every insurance offered in the country three or six or nine of your states will have tightened their medicaid eligibility requirements in contravention of the act so they're taking money by breaking their contacts. -- contracts. they would have to lose their medicaid must be. tell me how that is not coercive
6:33 pm
that is a primary command that will read a statute in a way that doesn't enfuse on the relationship. mr. carvin: they never said it invades a state police power. justice sotomayor: we said it last year. mr. carvin: here states want billions of federal dollars. that'sheartedly invading state solve rememberity. >> from the standpoint of the die nam exs of federalism, that seemed to me there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, then the states are being told to create your own exchange or we'll send your insurance market
6:34 pm
into a death spiral, we'll have people pay taxes which will not get any credit on a subsidy cost of insurance will be sky high but this is not collusion. mr. carvin: the government never made that argument. sometimes we think of things the government doesn't. what i'm trying to convey is if this was unconstitutional, the medicaid statute this court approved in nfib would be unconstitutional. often you have an ambiguous provision interpreted one way.
6:35 pm
if interpreting it one way is unconstitutional, interpret it the other way. justice scalia: do we have any case that says when there's a court provision, if it is unconstitutional we can be -- we can rewrite it? mr. carvin: no, your honor. that was my point justice kennedy. talk about -- think about the medicaid deal as being unconstitutional. that's created a pocket in the law, people making less than the poverty line are not eligible for help. justice kennedy: i think the court and counsel for both sides should confront that your argument raises a serious constitutional question. i'm not sure that the government would agree with that.
6:36 pm
>> a, there's no savings construction to echo justice scalia's point, but, b, the point i want to make on the straight-up constitutionality is, if this is unconstitutional, then all of the provisions in the u.s. code that say to states if you do something for no child left behind, we will >> but this is this is quite different. >> in south carolina v. dole, where the matter of funding for the highway, suppose congress said, and if you don't build the highways, you have to go 35 miles an hour all over the state. we wouldn't allow that. >> no. well, there, of course, you would be interfering with a basic state prerogative as to establish their limit, and they are the condition is not related to that. here the condition is perfectly related to it. >> mr. carvin -- >> we want to create something new >> mr. carvin, here's a -- you refer to the medicaid example. that's a familiar -- a grant in aid says to the state, here's the federal money and here's the conditions, take it or leave it. that's one pattern. but this pattern that we have says flexible state.
6:37 pm
you can you can have your program if you want it, and if you don't, there's a fallback. there's the federal program. i mean, that's a typical pattern. it's the pattern of the clean air act. you can have a state implementation plan, but state if you don't get up your plan, there's a federal implementation plan. i have never seen anything like this where it's if you take what the statute says you can have in 1321, then you get these disastrous consequences. >> that's why this is much less risky a deal for congress. and what distinguishes it from medicaid as the dissenting opinion in nfib pointed out. in medicaid, congress is playing all in, take it or leave it. if they turn down the deal, then medicaid is completely thwarted. here, if they turn down the subsidy deal, they still get the valuable benefits of an exchange and there's not a scintilla of --
6:38 pm
>> what are those benefits? what are the customers that can buy on it? what are the insurers that will sell on it? >> well, three points. one is we know textually that they thought exchanges without subsidies work, because again, they have territorial exchanges, but the government concedes no subsidies. >> that's not -- >> we have legislative history which -- >> mr. carvin, that's not what you said previously when you were here last time in this never-ending saga. >> you said without the subsidies driving demand within the exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through exchanges. and then you said the insurance exchanges cannot operate as intended by congress absent the subsidies. >> that is entirely true. they wouldn't have operated as intended because congress intended all 50 states to take this deal. so eliminating -- >> so why create 1326 at all? obviously, they thought that some states wouldn't. >> well, they thought it was
6:39 pm
possible and -- >> very possible. >> and then -- >> because they set up a mechanism for that to happen. >> and then they what happens? you still get the exchange. it's not like medicaid where the entire federal program is thwarted. you get the benefits that were lauded. >> but nobody no one's going to visit the program if there are no subsidies because not enough people will buy the programs to stay in the exchanges. >> that is demonstrably untrue and not reflected anywhere in the legislative history. the legislative history quite clearly contradicts that. many senators got up and said there are very valuable benefits to the exchange, one-stop shopping, amazon, as president obama has said. the government came in the last case and told you these two things operate quite independently. we don't need exchange without subsidies. in contrast, there's not a scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral. not a word. >> wait a minute.
6:40 pm
that was the whole purpose that drove this bill because states had experimented with this, and those that didn't have subsidies or other provisions of the act didn't survive. >> they didn't have -- >> you said it yourself in the prior case. >> no. the prior case was about the individual mandate. the government came in and said the individual mandate is necessary to affect death spirals. no one, in the findings in congress or anywhere else, suggested that subsidies were available. will subsidies reduce the number of people available on the individual -- >> my problem my problem is that the reverse. you're talking about congress, how hiding, borrowing the phrase of one of my colleagues, a huge thing in a mousetrap. ok? because do you really believe that states fully understood that they were not going to get their citizens were not going to get subsidies if they let the federal government? what senator said that during the hearings?
6:41 pm
>> the same amount of senators who said that subsidies were available on hhs exchanges which is none. they didn't deal with it in the legislative history just as they didn't deal with medicaid because the statute was quite clear. let's talk about it in context again, justice sotomayor. the context is the only provisions in the act establishing any limit on the subsidies is found in 36b. so it's not a mouse hole. it's the place you'd expect to find it. it's the only place in the act that limits subsidies to purchases made on exchange. >> but it's a -- >> i don't know think that's quite right, mr. carvin. >> justice ginsburg. >> it's a tax code provision that's an implementation provision. it tells you how you compute the individual amount. >> it -- >> it it's not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find this. >> no. your honor, if that's true -- >> and if it -- >> sorry. please. >> what justice kagan just read to you, you had the idea that the subsidies were essential --
6:42 pm
>> no. >> to have the thing work. that's what you told us last time. >> what i told you was it wouldn't work as expected, and that's because they thought this deal would work just like the medicaid deal where all 50 states would say yes, so you would have both of congressional purposes. >> then why in the world would they set up this whole extra thing if they didn't think anybody was going to take it? >> well, that was my response to justice sotomayor. that is completely unsupported empirical observation made post hoc by amicus. there's no reflection of that in the legislative history. indeed, the legislative history refutes it. >> mr. carvin, we've heard talk about this other case. did you win that other case? >> so maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today? >> i'm really glad your honor said that. and if i could return to context -- >> i mean i'm sorry, mr. carvin. please. >> just very briefly, justice kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond, we've already talked
6:43 pm
about context. section 1311 is a key part of this context. it says in the strongest possible terms we want states to run these exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course there is absolutely no incentive for states to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. whereas if you condition subsidies, congress accomplishes both of its goals. widespread subsidies, plus state-run exchanges. in terms of terms of art, again, there is language in the statute which says "exchanges," "exchanges under the act." those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and state-established exchanges. and, yet, the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a rational, english-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on hhs exchanges use the phrase "exchanges established by the state." he cannot provide to you any rational reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formulation. >> mr. carvin, why don't you
6:44 pm
take an extra ten minutes and maybe we'll give you a little bit more of a chance to talk. >> ok. fine. >> well, then, i'll ask a question. >> well, if you're going to ruin my 10 minutes. >> no. i mean, let's go back to this question of where congress put this thing because putting aside constitutional issues, i mean, there's at least a presumption as we interpret statutes, that congress does not mean to impose heavy burdens and draconian choices on states unless it says so awfully clearly. and here and this goes back to what justice ginsburg was saying there's really nothing clear about this. i mean, this took a year and a half for anybody to even notice this language. and as justice ginsburg said it's put in not in the place that you would expect it to be put in, which is where it says to the states, here is the choice you have. it's not even put in where the statute defines who a qualified
6:45 pm
individual is or who is entitled to get the subsidies. rather, it comes in this technical formula that's directed to the department of the treasury saying how much the amount of the subsidy should be. and that seems to be it both makes no sense from congress's point of view, and in terms of our own point of view, in terms of interpreting statutes, that's not the clarity with which we require the government to speak when it's upsetting federal-state relations like this. >> i must respectfully disagree for three reasons, justice kagan. in the first place, of course, you where else would you expect a tax credit except in the tax code? that's where this was. you wouldn't put it in 42 u.s.c., which has nothing to do with taxes. it's the only place where exchange is limitations placed. you have three audiences here, not just states. you have to tell taxpayers what they're entitled to. you have to tell insurance companies when these subsidies
6:46 pm
are available. and you have states. so you have to put it in 36b. so the argument, i guess, the government is making is what you should have done is put half of it in 36b and half it in 1321 which, of course, would have confused everybody. 36b would say, exchanges, period. then you'd go to 1321 and say, when we said exchanges in 36b we meant established by the state. >> mr. carvin, if i were a state official and i was trying to decide whether my state should establish an exchange, and i wanted to know whether individuals who enrolled in a plan on my possible state-established exchange would get a credit, where would i look? >> exactly. the basic thesis here is these exchanges don't work without subsidies. you've read 1311. you've read 1321. now you're going to go find out where the subsidies are. that's 36b. they're hypothesizing state -- >> i think not, mr. carvin.
6:47 pm
i mean, i think the place i would look to find out about my choices is in the provision of the statute that talks about my choices. i think the last place i would look is a provision of the statute that talks about what is it coverage months for purposes of this subsection, which, by the way, isn't even the right subsection, but whatever. that where i would look, is in where it talks about what a coverage month is? >> but, your honor, i've already described the difficulties of putting it part of it in 1321, right? because then you would create this bizarre tax credit provision which is only half true, and you wouldn't tell taxpayers and insurance companies. so i believe that's the complete answer. but the other practical point i'd like to make is they had three years to implement this. and no one thought the states were going to have to make a decision overnight. if the irs had done its job, every state would have been fully informed of the consequences because presumably
6:48 pm
they've read 36b, and then they would make an intelligent decision well in advance of the 2013 deadline. so there's a bizarre notion that states were somehow unable to read a statute or to or to read a regulation is simply -- >> i really want i really want to hear what you're going to say in your two minutes. and if you want, only if you want, i would be interested in your responses to the government's brief, that if you read the words "established by the state" without reference to the technical definition as you wish, this isn't just about the taxes. it means employers in virginia don't have to make policy, don't have to don't have to give policies, but if they have one maryland worker they do. it means that they never can tighten up their medicaid regulations, never, in 34 states but, of course, in the others they can. it means that there's no
6:49 pm
qualified person ever to buy anything on a an exchange established by the secretary for the state, and they have two or three other anomalies that have nothing to do with taxes, all of which supports their argument that you have to read this phrase technically according to the definition. now, that's their basic point. i've tried to summarize it. do it as you wish you. i just want you to have 5 or 10 minutes to answer it. >> thank you. and the first point is there are no anomalies. >> i'm going to clock that, see if see if you get 5 minutes. >> there are no the first point i'd like to make is there are no anomalies stemming from our interpretation of 36b. the government agrees with that. their biggest anomaly is this qualified individuals point about how there would be nobody on hhs exchanges. the solicitor general is not going to stand up here and tell you that if we prevail in our interpretation of 36b, they would be obliged by the logic of that opinion to empty out hhs exchanges. so we all agree that there's no connection between 36b and the qualified individual. that's point one.
6:50 pm
point two is, if you want anomalies, their interpretation of the statute requires 34 states today to lose all medicaid coverage. why is that? because of the provisions on 64a through 66a of the government's brief, there are various requirements that the state, on pain of losing all of its medicaid funds, must coordinate between the state-established exchange, the state agency for chip, and the state agency for medicaid in terms of secure interface and enrollment. now that makes perfect sense if "exchange established by the state" means what it says, but they think it encompasses hhs exchanges. well, the state cannot ensure coordination between hhs exchanges and the state agencies, and none of the 34 are doing it today. so under their atextual reading of the statute, 34 states will suffer the penalty that this court found in nfib as unconstitutionally coercive. as to this medicaid maintenance anomaly, the government agrees
6:51 pm
that the purpose of this provision was to freeze medicaid payments until you had an exchange with subsidies, which makes sense, right? you want to coordinate the two. and that's exactly what this provision means under our interpretation. until you have an exchange with subsidies, the states will be frozen. the government says, that thing ended on january 1, 2014. that's a figment of their imagination. it's nowhere in the statute. plus which it makes no sense. before 2014, the states were powerless to have an exchange with subsidies, right? they couldn't do it. so he was a three-year freeze on medicaid that they were powerless to get out of. after 2014, if they don't want to have their medicaid frozen, all they have to do is establish an exchange. so it's a less harsh restriction on states, plus which it gives them another incentive in addition to the subsidies to create the state exchange, which is the purpose enunciated in 1311.
6:52 pm
i don't know oh, as to, yeah maybe somebody would from another -- if you had an employee that lived in another state, maybe he would be subject to the employer mandate. why is that an anomaly? congress likes the employer mandate. of course they wanted to expand it. they also never thought it would really happen because, again, what they thought was going to happen was there wouldn't be neighboring states without it because nobody was going to turn down this extraordinarily generous deal. i don't know if my 5 minutes are up, but that's my response to these anomalies. i think that you >> as i understand it -- >> i think if i could -- >> wow. you've been talking a long time. >> yes. yes. sorry. >> you have two more sentences. >> even if there were anomalies in these other sections, you don't transport them to 36b which is concededly neither absurd and furthers the purposes of the act, just like in utility air, because the word pollutants didn't work with one section you don't spread it like a virus throughout the rest of the act. you cure it in that provision
6:53 pm
-- >> those were two long sentences -- >> if and when there's any litigation. >> i think i think -- >> oh, it was a long sentence. >> yes. i think i'm right that justice breyer's question about anomalies, which are replete in the act, under your interpretation, did not talk about what i think is one of the most glaring ones, which is this qualified individualist thing, that you're essentially setting up a system in which these federal exchanges, that there will be no customers and, in fact, there will be no products, because section 1311 says that the exchange shall make health plans available to qualified individuals, and then the next section says that qualified individual means an individual who resides in the state that established the exchange. so under your theory, if federal exchanges don't qualify as exchanges established by the state, that means federal exchanges have no customers. >> which, of course, is not the reading that the government's giving to it because they're not
6:54 pm
going to tell you -- >> well, that's because they don't share your theory. >> no, no. >> under your theory -- >> no. >> that's the result. >> well, no. let me be as clear as i can. if we prevail in this case, they are not going to empty out the hhs exchanges because they understand that there are numerous defenses even if you interpret "established by the state" literally in the qualified individuals provision. number one defense that they will use is, it says you have to be a qualified individual with respect to an exchange. as justice breyer pointed out, the statutory definition of exchange is a 1311 exchange. so they're only talking about state exchanges, not these hhs exchanges, and it is in section 1312, which immediately follows 1311, before 1321. number two, "qualified individual" doesn't mean that means you're guaranteed access. it doesn't mean if you're not qualified, you're absolutely denied access. we know that from the illegal alien provision, which says illegal aliens are neither qualified individuals nor
6:55 pm
eligible for subsidies. >> ah, but look at the look at the prisoner provision, which says prisoners shouldn't be treated as qualified individuals. so under your theory, this statute effectively said that prisoners should be able to enroll on federal exchanges? that makes no sense. >> it makes perfect sense to say the states get a choice. think about somebody who's in prison in february, they're getting out in april, they've got to buy insurance under the individual mandate. so if you said nobody who's incarcerated can buy insurance that means they wouldn't be able to buy insurance during the relevant enrollment period. it makes perfect sense to give states the flexibility to say, as to those incarcerated principles, you can make them available for exchanges, but under illegal aliens we don't want to, which is why we are saying they are neither qualified nor eligible. even if justice even if you don't find that the most pristine logic to be applied to a statute, remember, we are interpreting these statutes to
6:56 pm
avoid an absurd result. and it's a basic principle of statutory construction that you will give a plausible, if not the most persuasive, reading to a statute to avoid the result. >> but we are interpreting a statute generally to make it make sense as a whole, right? we look at the whole text. we don't look at four words. we look at the whole text, the particular context, the more general context, try to make everything harmonious with everything else. i think you said, even at the very beginning of this argument as we were going back and forth about my hypothetical, that, of course, context matters and context might make all the difference with respect to what those five words mean. and i think what we're suggesting is that, if you look at the entire text, it's pretty clear that you oughtn't to treat those five words in the way you are. >> i've given you the contextual points before. i think the key one that i'd like to convey to you, justice kagan, is section 1311. you say the statute must work
6:57 pm
harmoniously. if you provide a subsidies to hhs exchanges, you have essentially gutted section 1311's strong preference for state exchanges. what will happen is precisely what did happen under the irs rule, 2/3 of the states are saying no, we're not going to undertake this thankless task of running these exchanges with no incentives to do so. so yes, it what i have here in terms of what the statute means is 36b quite clearly saying exchanges are available only on states. i have 1311 explaining why they limited subsidies to that. and there is no contrary legislative history at all. what do they have, an atextual reading of 36b, which they can't explain why anybody would have used those words if they wanted to convey exchanges, a rule that completely undermines the purposes of 1311 and no supporting legislative history. so under all the legal materials
6:58 pm
that this court normally used to discern what statute means, we clearly prevail. >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli, you'll have extra 10 minutes as well. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, standing has been raised, so let me start by telling you where we stand on standing and then i'd appreciate the opportunity after that to summarize what i think are the two key points in this case. now, with respect to standing, the question the case or controversy question turns on whether any of the four petitioners is liable for the tax penalty for 2014. now, this case was litigated in the district court in 2013 based on projections on the part of each of the four petitioners that they would earn a certain income in 2014. they filed declarations saying that. with respect to 2 of the 4, the projections were of their income were such that they would qualify for the unaffordability exception and they wouldn't have standing. with respect to the other two,
6:59 pm
their projections were such that they wouldn't qualify for the unaffordability exception and they would have standing. but those were projections in 2013 about their income in 2014. 2014 has now come and gone, and we know we don't know, but petitioners know whether any of the 4 have, in fact are, in fact, liable for the tax penalty and that will depend on whether their actual income in 2014 matched their projections. now, mr. carvin said there was fact-finding about this. i'm afraid that's not correct. the petitioners the petitioners did file a motion for summary judgment, but the case was decided on the basis of the government's motion to dismiss before discovery and without any fact-finding. i'm assuming because mr. carvin has not said anything about the absence of a tax penalty, that at least, 1 of the 4 has and is, in fact, liable for a tax penalty, but that's the key standing question. now, with respect to the veterans point, your honor, if it is the case, as mr. carvin tells us, that mr. hurst was a veteran for only 10 months, then
7:00 pm
i think he's correct, he would not qualify for va health care because you generally have to serve two years. so that's where we are on standing. now, if i could turn to the merits. >> so are you saying one person does have standing? >> no, no. it will depend on whether as a factual matter 1 of the 4 has and is, in fact, liable for the tax penalty for 2014. and that's information that is not in the government's possession. it is in the possession of petitioners' counsel. and i should make one more point, with respect to 2015, there were no projections, there's nothing in the record about the possible income of any of the petitioners for 2015, so there's really nothing that would establish a case of controversy for 2014. >> well, you're surely not raising a standing question with us here for the first time at oral argument, are you? >> well, mr. chief justice, as i said, that based on the projections, it was our understanding that at least 1 of the 4 would be liable for a tax penalty. the question of standing has
7:01 pm
been raised and i've tried to identify for the court what i think is the relevant question which is whether any one of the 4 has, in fact is, in fact liable for a tax penalty because -- >> this is this is on a motion to dismiss, right? >> well, that's correct, your honor, but it does also go to this court's jurisdiction. because if none of the four is liable for a tax penalty for 2014, there just isn't the case or controversy. none of them is liable, there's no there's no injury. and so i do think that's ultimately the relevant question here and with respect to standing. i don't think there's a question about veteran status, but i do think that's the relevant question. >> isn't the question before us as to standing whether the district court correctly held in the motion to dismiss context that there was standing? that may not be the end of the matter, but don't we have to isn't that what's before us? >> well, that may be yes. but then you and you might alternatively think about this as a question of mootness, i guess, in that, you know, based on the projection, there was a case or controversy, but if the projection didn't come to pass and none of the plaintiffs is
7:02 pm
liable for a tax penalty, then the case or controversy no longer exists. >> well, what are you suggesting? should we have a should we have a trial here? >> no, i'm not suggesting anything of the kinds. >> on this issue and find -- what the facts are? >> justice alito, i did not raise standing affirmatively, the court raised it. and i'm just doing my best to let the court know what our position is on standing. >> well, you would you send it back then to the district court? >> well, i guess no. i guess what i've said is that mr. carvin hasn't suggested that there's no plaintiff liable for a tax penalty. based on that, i'm inferring that at least one of the petitioners -- >> representation by him? >> and i'm not -- >> would you -- has standing. why wouldn't we accept a there's no reason not to if he if he makes a representation that at least one of the four is has was liable in 2014 and is liable in 2000 or will be liable in 2015 -- >> so i guess what i'm saying -- >> i mean, we know at least one of them won't because that's -- >> what i'm saying about that is i'm actually going to step further than that, justice
7:03 pm
sotomayor, given that there hasn't been i'm willing to accept the absence of a representation as an indication that there is a case or controversy here, and so that's why, mr. chief justice, we haven't raised standing and that's what it but i do think that the key question is whether one of the four is liable for a tax penalty. you have to have that to have a case or controversy in the case. if i could now, let me please turn to the merits that summarize what i think are the two key points. first, our reading follows directly from the text of the act's applicable provisions and it's really the only way to make sense of section 36b and the rest of the act. textually, their reading produces an incoherent statute that doesn't work. and second, our reading is compelled by the act's structure and design. their reading forces hhs to establish rump exchanges that are doomed to fail. it makes a mockery of the statute's express status express textual promise of state flexibility. it precipitates the insurance market death spirals that the
7:04 pm
statutory findings specifically say the statute was designed to avoid, and of course it revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of americans. that cannot be the statute that congress intended. >> of course it could be. i mean it may not be the statute they intended. the question is whether it's the statute that they wrote. i mean, you know, there are no provisions in the statute that turn out to be ill 11 ill considered and ill conceived. >> so it's not the statute that they wrote, and the reason it's not the statute that they wrote, i think i want to actually start, if i could, picking up i think on a variation of the hypothetical that justice kagan ask asked. in petitioners' brief they throw down the gauntlet with respect to a hypothetical about airports, and that a statute requires a state to construct an airport, it says the federal government shall construct such airport if the state doesn't and no one would think that the federal government's airport was an airport constructed by the state. well, what i would say to that is that if those statutory
7:05 pm
provisions were conjoined with a provision that said airplanes may only land at airports constructed by the state, then you would conclude immediately that what that federally constructed airport qualifies as an airport constructed by the state, and the because otherwise the statute would make no sense. and the same exact thing is true here. >> there are no statutes that make no sense. >> this one makes sense. >> if that is the case, every statute must make sense and we will we will twist the words as necessary to make it make that can't be the rule. >> that isn't the rule. but the rule -- >> of course not. >> is that you read -- that you don't read statutory provisions in isolation. you read them in context. the rule is that you read them in order to ensure that the statute operates as a harmonious whole. you read them so that you don't render the statutory provisions ineffective. you read them to promote -- >> where is that possible. >> you read -- >> i mean, you acknowledge that all of what you're saying only applies where there are alternative readings that are reasonable. you pick the one that will do
7:06 pm
all the things that you say. >> and there is there is -- >> but, but if it can only reasonably mean one thing, it will continue to mean that one thing even if it has untoward consequences for the rest of the statute. no? >> with respect to this statute, first, let me i want to make two points. first -- >> answer me in principle. i mean, is it not the case that if the only reasonable interpretation of a particular provision produces disastrous consequences in the rest of the statute, it nonetheless means what it says. is that true or not? >> i think there are a couple of limitations on that principle. the first is if what you have is a situation in which the that creates conflict within a statutory scheme, then the court's got to do its best to try to harmonize and reconcile the provisions. and, secondly -- >> well, i disagree with that. you have a single case in which we have said the provision is not ambiguous, it means this thing, but, lord, that would
7:07 pm
make a terrible statute, so we will interpret it to mean something else. do you have one case where we've ever said that? >> i think i think brown & williamson is a good example of that. in brown & williamson, the court said, look, the definition of drug and drug delivery device would actually seem unambiguously to cover tobacco but when you read that provision in context, and considering the full scope of the regulatory regime, it can't possibly mean that. but let me let me actually work through the text here, because i do think i can show you that there's a quite reasonable reading of this statutory text that allows you to affirm and requires you to affirm the government's position. >> but, general verrilli, before we get too immersed in a number of provisions of this, could you respond to a question that was asked during mr. carvin's argument. if we adopt petitioners' interpretation of this act, is it unconstitutionally coercive? >> so the here's what i would say about that, justice alito. i think that it would be certainly be a novel constitutional question, and i
7:08 pm
think that i'm not prepared to say to the court today that it is unconstitutional. it would be my duty to defend the statute and on the authority of new york v. united states, i think we would do so. but i don't think there's any doubt that it's a novel question, and if the court believes it's a serious question -- >> is it a i was going to say does novel mean difficult? >> because it does seem to me that if petitioners' argument is correct, this is just not a rational choice for the states to make and that they're being coerced. >> so what i -- >> and that you then have to invoke the standard of constitutional avoidance. >> well, what i was going to say, justice kennedy, is to the extent the court believes that this is a serious constitutional question and this does rise to the level of something approaching coercion, then i do think the doctrine of constitutional avoidance becomes another very powerful reason to read the statutory text our way.
7:09 pm
because i do think and i do think with respect to the point that your honor's making remember, it's not just it's not just a situation in which there is onerous conditions, onerous consequences for state residents. it's also a profound problem of notice here, that, you know, if you read petitioners' if you take petitioners' reading of the statute, then the idea that states were given added -- you can't possibly justify this as adequate notice to the states. >> well, mr. general verrilli, let me ask you this about notice. we get lots and lots of amicus briefs from states. and we got two amicus briefs from states here. 34 states, i think, is -- that's the number of states that declined to or failed to establish a state exchange? >> correct. >> now, if they were all caught off guard and they were upset about this, you would expect them to file an amicus brief telling us that. but actually, of the 34, only 6
7:10 pm
of them signed the brief that was submitted by a number of states making that argument. 23 states, 23 jurisdictions submitted that brief. 17 of them are states that established state exchanges. only 6 of the states that didn't establish state exchanges signed that brief, how do you account for that? >> so, i guess i'd make two points about that, justice alito. first, you've got states there states in both camps, all of whom told you that they didn't understand the statute that way. now, with respect to the other 8 states that filed the amicus brief on the other side, i actually think there's quite an important point that goes to their understanding of what this act did. remember, this is an irs rule that we're talking about here, and the irs put out a notice of proposed rulemaking saying this is what we intend to do, and several of these states oklahoma, indiana, nebraska they filed rulemaking comments in that in that proceeding. and if you look at those rulemaking comments you will see that they address a number of issues, and they say nothing nothing about the issue that's before the court now.
7:11 pm
so if they really understood the statute as denying subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges, that would have front and center in their rulemaking comments, but they said nothing about it and i think that tells you a good deal about where -- what everybody understood that this statute was -- >> well, there's another point on notice on this pennhurst argument that seems curious to me. usually when this argument comes up, a state has signed up for a federal program and then they say, oh, my gosh, we didn't realize what we had gotten ourselves into. but here, it's not too late for a state to establish an exchange if we were to adopt petitioners' interpretation of the statute. so going forward, there would be no harm. >> well, let me address that directly, and then i'd like to make a broader point about statutory context in response. now directly of course, i don't i don't think it's possible to say there would be no harm. the tax credits will be cut off immediately and you will have very significant, very adverse
7:12 pm
effects immediately for millions of people in many states in their insurance markets -- >> well, i said i've said going forward. >> and then -- >> after the current tax year. >> and then going -- >> would it not be possible if we were to adopt petitioners' interpretation of the statute to stay the mandate until the end of this tax year as we have done in other cases where we have adopted an interpretation of the constitutional or a statute that would have very disruptive consequences such as the northern pipeline case. >> sure. northern pipeline is an example of doing that, and it will be up to the court to decide whether it has the authority to do that. i will say, this does seem different than northern pipeline to me, because this is about money going out of the federal treasury, which is a different scenario. but if the court obviously, if that's where the court is going and that's what the court thinks the proper disposition is, that would reduce the disruption. but what i think is another important point to make here just as a practical matter, the idea that a number of states, all of these states or a significant number are going to
7:13 pm
be able to in the 6 months between when a decision in the this case would come out and when the new the new year for insurance purposes will begin we'll be able to set up exchanges, get them up, up and running and get all the approvals done i think is completely unrealistic. >> how long has it taken -- >> well, for just to give you an example of the current time line, justice ginsburg, the in order to be in order to have an exchange approved and insurance policies on the exchange ready for the 2016 year, those approvals have to occur by may of 2015. ok. so that gives you a sense of the of the time line that hhs is operating under. >> what about what about congress? you really think congress is just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue. i mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the you know, the bankruptcy court decision? congress adjusts, enacts a statute that 16 that takes care of the problem. it happens all the time. why is that not going to happen here? >> well, this congress, your honor, i >> you know, i mean, of course
7:14 pm
theoretically of course, theoretically they could. >> i don't care what congress you're talking about. if the consequences are as disastrous as you say, so many million people without insurance and whatnot, yes, i think this congress would act. >> and but the relevant question and then i'm going to try to get back to the point i was trying to make in response to justice alito's question. the relevant question here is what did the congress that enacted this statute in 2010 do? did they really set up a system in which the states are subject to the kind of onerous situation that the petitioner claims? and i think there are three textual indications objective, textual indications that cannot possibly have been the statutory scheme that congress tried to set up. first is the existence of the federal exchanges. it would make no sense, no sense for congress to have provided for federal exchanges if, as mr. carvin suggests, the statutory design was supposed to result in
7:15 pm
every state establishing its exchange. second -- >> well, wouldn't it have been again, talking about federalism a mechanism for states to show that they had concerns about the wisdom and the workability of the act in the form that it was passed? >> so, justice kennedy, i think the federalism values are promoted by our interpretation because if that is, indeed, what a state thought, if a state really would have preferred that not to have the state government participate in the implementation of this act, for reasons that your honor identified, the structure of the act that congress put in place and that we're advocating for today fully vindicates that concern. they can decide not to participate without having any adverse consequences visited upon the citizens of the state. and that's why our reading is the pro-federalism reading. it's their reading that seems to me that is the anti-federalism
7:16 pm
reading, and that's a powerful reason to reject it. and if i could go to the second statutory point, which is related to what we're talking about, justice kennedy, which is section 1321, says that this statute is designed to afford state flexibility. state flexibility. it would be an orwellian sense of the word "flexibility" to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statute uses it, because it's the polar opposite of flexibility. and the third point, seems to me, is the notice point, that if, indeed, the plan was, as mr. carvin said, that every state was going to establish an exchange for itself and that would cure all of the massive statutory anomalies and textual anomalies and absurdities and impossibilities that his reading provides for, if that was really the plan, then the consequence for the states would be in neon lights in this statute. you would want to make absolutely sure that every state got the message. but instead what you have is a
7:17 pm
subclause in section 36b, which is a provision that addresses the eligibility of individual taxpayers for taxing purposes. >> this is not the most elegantly drafted statute. it was it was pushed through on expedited procedures and didn't have the kind of consideration by a conference committee, for example, that statutes usually do. what would be so surprising if among its other imperfections, there is the imperfection that what the states have to do is not obvious enough? it doesn't strike me as inconceivable. >> so, justice scalia, i'm going to answer that question by talking about the legislative process, because i think it is quite relevant and i think it ought to be quite relevant even to you with respect to the question you just asked. the language here in 36b was not the product of some last-minute deal, it wasn't the product of scrambling at the end.
7:18 pm
the language that emerged here, the statutory structure with the language of 36b about tax credits, the language that's in 1311, the language that's in 1321 was the product of the senate finance committee markup, which went on for weeks and weeks. it was a public it was a public hearing. it frankly, it was covered by c-span. you can go watch it on the c-span archives if you want to and you will see coming out of that the that the understanding the clear understanding was with this statutory setup would result in subsidies being available in every state. >> there were senators, were there not, who were opposed to having the federal government run the whole thing, because they thought that would lead to a single-payer system, which some people wanted. and the explanation for this provision is it prevents it prevents the the federalization of the entire thing. >> no. justice scalia, i -- >> that's certainly a plausible explanation -- >> no. >> as to why the provision is there. >> mr. carvin has floated that
7:19 pm
as an explanation and he and he suggests that it was senator ben nelson who required it. we there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence, none whatsoever, that anybody thought that way, that the solution to the problem that your honor's identified is what congress did by having states have the option to set up their own exchanges with state-by-state federal fallbacks rather than a national system. senator nelson has made clear, he has stated that he had no intention of the kind. there's no contemporaneous evidence at all that anyone did. and i do and what mr. carvin has suggested is that this was the product of some deal to try to get votes so the act could get passed. what i would suggest to your honor is that there is objective proof that is not true. the provisions in the act that were negotiated at the end to secure the necessary votes are in title x of the act. and if you look in the in the act, pages 833 to 924, that's title x. you can see all of the amendments.
7:20 pm
not a single one has anything to do with the statutory language before the court now. >> well, the puzzle that's created by your interpretation is this-- if congress did not want the phrase "established by the state" to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language? why didn't they use other formulations that appear elsewhere in the act? why didn't they say, "established under the act"? why didn't they say, "established within the state"? why didn't they include a provision saying that an exchange established by hhs is a state exchange when they have a provision in there that does exactly that for the district of columbia and for the territories? it says that they are deemed to be states for purposes of this act. >> so -- >> so why would they do that? >> so, of course, the provision says doesn't say "established by the state" with a period after state. it says "established by the state under section 1311."
7:21 pm
and our position textually is and we think this is clearly the better reading of the text that by cross-referencing section 1311, effectively what congress is doing is saying that exchanges established through whatever mechanism, exchanges set up by the states themselves, exchanges set up by -- >> so you're saying that by cross-reference to 1311, they really mean 1311 and 1321? >> yes. well, let me and i do think that, and let me walk through why i think that's true. >> all right. that seems to me to go in the wrong direction -- >> no, i think -- >> for your case -- >> i think -- >> not the right direction. >> no, i think it goes in the right direction, if you'll just ride with me for a little bit, justice kennedy, on this. >> well, before you before you get on to that, that your answer doesn't explain why "by the state" is in there. then why didn't they say "established under 1311"? >> well, so the second point is that wherever this provision appears in the act, "established by the state under section 1311," it's doing work. and the work it's doing is saying, what we're talking about is the specific exchange established in the specific state as opposed to general
7:22 pm
rules for exchanges. if you look at the medicaid maintenance of effort provision that it works the same way. >> well, why didn't they say "in the state"? that's the phrase you just used, "in the state." why didn't they say "in the state"? >> because i suppose they could have, but it worked perfectly well this way. if you look at the qualified individual provision, it's clearly how they're using it with respect to the qualified individual provision. and with respect to that provision, it says a qualified individual is a person who is located who resides in the state that established the exchange. clearly, what they're talking about is a geographical reference to the particular state. that's what's going on there and what's going on every time the statute uses that phrase. so it's doing that work, and that's why it's in there. but now if i could go back to your point, justice kennedy, it says, "established by the state under section 1311." section 1311(b)(1) says, "each state shall establish an american health benefits exchange for the state." it's not, as mr. carvin said, an
7:23 pm
urging that states do it. it says, "each state shall establish." now, we know that when congress used that language, "each state shall establish," it must have meant something more inclusive than each state government shall itself set up the exchange. we know that because congress is legislating against the backdrop of the tenth amendment, and so it couldn't impose that requirement. and we know that because of section 1321, because section 1321 provides the means by which the 1311(b)(1) requirement is satisfied. it will be satisfied by a state electing to meet the federal requirements for exchanges, or it can be satisfied in the event that a state doesn't or tries, but comes up short by hhs stepping in and establishing the exchange. >> so when the statute says, "each state shall establish," it really means the federal government shall establish if a state doesn't establish. >> i think the right way -- >> and if that were the correct interpretation, you wouldn't 1321 at all. >> so, no. i think the right way to think about this, justice alito, is
7:24 pm
that what's going on here is that the right place to focus, let me put it that way. the right place to focus here is not on the who, but on the what. on the thing that gets set up and whether it qualifies as an exchange established by the state, and these exchanges do qualify. and the reason they qualify is because they fulfill the requirement in section 1311(b)(1) that each state shall establish an exchange. and 1321 tells you that because it says to the hhs that when a when a state hasn't elected to meet the federal requirements, hhs steps in, and what the hhs does is set up the required exchange. it says such exchange, which is referring to the immediately prior to the required exchange where the only exchange required in the act is an exchange under section 1311(b)(1). so it has to be that's that what hhs is doing under the plain text of the statute is fulfilling the requirement of the section 1311(b)(1) that each
7:25 pm
state establish an exchange, and for that reason we say it qualifies as an exchange established by the state. that's reinforced, as justice breyer suggested earlier, by the definition which says that an exchange is an exchange established under section 1311. 1311, again, has 1311(b)(1) which says each state shall establish an exchange. and it has to be that way because petitioners have conceded, and it's at page 22 of their brief, that an exchange that hhs sets up is supposed to be the same exchange that petitioners say function just like an exchange that the state sets up for itself. >> well, you're putting a lot of weight on the on the one word, such, such exchange. such it seems to me the most unrealistic interpretation of "such" to mean the federal government shall establish a state exchange. rather, it seems to me "such" means an exchange for the state rather than an exchange of the state. how can the government federal government establish a state
7:26 pm
exchange. that is gobbledygook. you know, "such" must mean something different. >> it isn't gobbledygook justice scalia. and i think about it and i go back to something that justice alito asked earlier. and that if the language of 36b were exactly the same as it is now, and the statute said in 1321 that an exchange set up set up by hhs shall qualify as an exchange established by the state for purposes of section 1311, you wouldn't change the language of 36b one iota, and that wouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the that subsidies were available on federal exchanges. and what we're saying is that effectively reading 1311 and 1321 together, that is what the statute does. and that is certainly that is a reasonable reading of the statute. it is really the only reading of the statute that allows you to be faithful to the text of 1311(b)(1), the word "shall," and to the tenth amendment. in order for their -- >> the word "such" means not
7:27 pm
just the exchange that the state was supposed to set up, but it means the state exchange. >> it means an exchange that qualifies as satisfy as an exchange established by the state because it satisfies the requirement of 1311(b)(1). >> no. you have to say it means the state exchange. you have to your case hinges on the fact that a federal exchange is a state exchange for purposes -- >> it hinges on it hinges on it qualifying as the state exchange or being equivalent to the state exchange for the purpose of the operation of the statute. that is a reasonable reading of the particular textual provisions, and once you've concluded that it's a reasonable reading of the particular textual provisions, then you have to read it the way that we say it needs it is to be read because it is the only way to make sense of the statute as a whole. it is the only way to bring it into harmony with the act's qualified individual and qualified health plan provisions which do lead to what they admit is an absurdity under their reading under the law.
7:28 pm
>> would you agree that there that there are provisions of the act where the exact same phrase, "established by the state," has to be read to mean established by the state and not by hhs? >> i don't -- >> there are some provisions like that. >> they've pointed out some, but i think they're wrong about each one, and i don't know what your honor has in mind. >> all right. well, let's take one let's take one. i'd be interested in your answer to it. 42 u.s.c. section 1396w3( h)(1)(d) which says that each state shall establish procedures to ensure that an exchange established by the state utilizes a secure electronic interface. and they say that if that is read to if "exchange established by the state" there is read to mean an hhs exchange, that means that the state in which that exchange is established is responsible for making sure that the federal exchange has a secure electronic interface. >> yes. they're just wrong about that. it's just completely wrong. the statute says that the state
7:29 pm
shall first of all, the statutory obligation is addressed to the state medicaid and chip agencies. what it says is they shall establish procedures to ensure the coordination. hhs has issued regulations setting forth what that statutory provision requires of states in those circumstance. every state where there is a federally facilitated exchange has met the requirements and fulfilled them, and it worked perfectly fine. there's no anomaly there at all. >> and the state -- >> it met it met the requirements of the regulations you say, but do the regulations track the statute? >> yes, they do. >> do they give the state authority to say whether or not these these conditions have been met? >> they the requirements are imposed on the state medicaid and chip end of the relationship. that's what the statute does, and the regulation to implement that statutory requirement, and it's satisfied in every state. and, of course, as your honor reading it to me said, it does say and i think that proves our point. the statute says each state shall. it doesn't say states that have set up exchanges for themselves shall.
7:30 pm
it says each state shall. it presupposes that there is going to be something that qualifies as an exchange established by the state in every state. so there's no anomaly there, and if your honor wants to ask me about any of the other ones, you can, but i there are no anomalies frankly. >> as i understand your answer to be that there are federal regulations telling the states what they have to do here, and they've all done it. but the fact remains that the state has some obligation under the regulations to make sure that there is a proper interface with the federal exchange. >> on the state's side of the interface, yes. but that's the chip and medicaid agencies. those are state government agencies, and it's their side of the interface that the statute governs. and, you know, as i said, i don't think there are anomalies of our reading, but if they are, they pale in comparison to the anomalies on the other side. i mean, i really do want to focus on this point about the qualified health plan and the qualified individual, because the statute is quite clear in section 1311 that an exchange, not an exchange established by
7:31 pm
the state, but an exchange can only sell a qualified health plan. it is forbidden from selling a health plan that is not a qualified health plan. and that's not an exchange established by the state. it is an exchange. now, the statute also says that to certify a health plan as qualified, the exchange has to decide that it is in the interest of qualified individuals. now, qualified individuals are persons who reside in the state that established the exchange. so if you read the statute, the language, the way mr. carvin reads it instead of the way we read it, you come to the conclusion and in a state in a federally facilitated exchange, there are no qualified individuals. therefore, the exchange cannot certify a qualified health plan as being in the interest of qualified individuals because there aren't any, so there aren't any qualified health plans that can lawfully be sold on the exchange. >> what is the provision that says that only a only a qualified individual can be can enroll in a plan under an exchange?
7:32 pm
>> so let the i will address that, but i just want to make clear the provision i'm talking about with respect to the prohibition on selling a qualified health plan to anybody on anything other than a qualified health plan on an exchange is 1311(d)(2)(b), which is at page 8a of the appendix to our brief. it's absolutely unambiguous. an exchange, not an exchange established by the state, an exchange may not make available any health plan that is not a qualified health plan. so -- >> qualified health plan. but what's the provision you were referring to when you said that an exchange may enroll only a qualified individual? >> well, i what they 20 what the statute says throughout is that qualified individuals are eligible to purchase on exchanges, and it's the necessary meaning of that phrase that if you are not a qualified individual, then you are not eligible to purchase health care on an exchange because otherwise, the word qualified would not have any
7:33 pm
meaning. the whole the meaning of the word qualified is to distinguish between people who are eligible and people who are ineligible. and as a policy matter, it wouldn't make any sense because think of the people who are not qualified individuals. the people who don't live in the state, the people in prison, and they're unlawfully documented. >> this is part of section 1312. a person qualified to purchase on an exchange must, quote, reside in the state that established the exchange. >> right. and there are no such people in 34 states under mr. carvin's theory of the statute. so it just doesn't it just you just run into a textual brick wall. >> i understand your argument is that it's a it's a logical inference from a number of provisions that only a qualified individual may purchase the policy, but i gather there is no provision that you can point to that says that directly. >> it's well, that's what qualified means, justice alito. it means that, you know, if you're not qualified, you're unqualified. and so, i mean, that's what it means. and so you're just reading the word "qualified" out of the statute if you read it that way.
7:34 pm
>> "qualified" is used in the in the lay sense of the term, it's not a technical term here. >> well, i think -- well, given the way it's defined, it's defined as a person who resides in the state. it excludes people out of state. it does that because the statute was quite clear that you weren't going to be allowed to shop for insurance policies across state lines because that would infringe on traditional state prerogatives regulating insurance. and it and with respect to prisoners, it doesn't make any sense to say that prisoners should be able to get insurance. mr. carvin says, yes, it does because they get out of prison. well, there's a specific statutory provision that says when you face a changed-life circumstance, such as getting out of prison, you can sign up for insurance at that point. he makes the point about unlawfully present persons being both unqualified and not being able to be covered, but that's not that's not surplus, that's there for a very important reason, which is that someone can be in lawful status and, therefore, be eligible for health care, but then lose lawful status and at that point, they can no longer be covered. so, just none of that works for them. none of that works for them. and but to really, to get to the
7:35 pm
fundamental point here that both at the level of text, you have clear irresolvable conflicts so that the statute can't work if you read it mr. carvin's way. you have, at the level of text -- >> is that a synonym for ambiguity? >> i think so, exactly right justice scalia i mean, excuse me, justice kennedy that you have ambiguity there precisely because you have to you know this is a statute that's going to operate one way or the other. and the question is how it's going to operate. and when you read it their way you 16 >> well, if it's if it's ambiguous, then we think about chevron. but it seems to me a drastic step for us to say that the department of internal revenue and its director can make this call one way or the other when there are, what, billions of dollars of subsidies involved here? hundreds of millions? >> yes, there are billions of dollars of subsidies involved here. but two points about that --
7:36 pm
>> and it seems to me our cases say that if the internal revenue service is going to allow deductions using these, that it has to be very, very clear. >> so -- >> and it seems to me a little odd that the director of internal revenue didn't identify this problem if it's ambiguous and advise congress it was. >> so a few points about that with respect to chevron deference. first, we do think chevron deference clearly supports the government here and i'll explain why. but before you get to that, you can resolve and should resolve this statute and the statute's meaning in our favor even without resort to chevron deference. that's what the canon of reading a statute as a whole to make it work harmoniously directs you to do. it's what the very important principles of federalism that we've been describing here direct you to do. if you think there's a constitutional problem with the statute, it's what the doctrine of constitutional avoidance directs you to do. now, with respect to chevron, section 36b(g) of the statute
7:37 pm
expressly delegates to the irs the specific authority to make any decisions necessary to implement section 36b. so you don't have any ambiguity. congress said the irs should do this. it is a big question, but as the court said in city of arlington two terms ago, chevron applies to big questions as well as small. your honor raised this point about the need for clarity in a tax deduction and irs in the statutory reading of tax deductions, there is a learned treatise that describes that as a false notion. and it is certainly not consistent with this court's unanimous decision in mayo two terms ago that chevron applies to the tax code like anything else. and so -- >> if you're right about chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation? >> i think a subsequent administration would need a very strong case under step two of
7:38 pm
the chevron analysis that was a reasonable judgment in view of the disruptive consequences. so as i said, i think you can resolve and should resolve this case because the statute really has to be read when taken as a whole to adopt the government's position. but i do take -- >> general -- >> if there are any if there are any tax attorneys in the in the courtroom today, i think probably they wrote down what you just said. when we get future tax cases the united states is going to argue that we should not read them to you know, there should be no presumption that a tax credit is provided by that statute. >> you should you should read it according to its terms. and when you read this provision according to its terms and you read it in context and you read it against the background principles of federalism, you have to affirm the government's interpretation. thank you. >> thank you, general. four minutes, mr. carvin. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. very quickly on standing. mr. hurst would be subject to a penalty absent relief by this court for 2014. as i've discussed, both he and mrs. leevy, of course, would face the same principle for
7:39 pm
2015. if the government is suggesting that their case has become moot because of changed circumstances, under cardinal chemical 508 u.s. 83, it's their burden to raise it, not ours to supplement the record. in terms of the anomaly, in terms of all the states losing 34 states losing their medicaid funds, the solicitor general greatly distorted the statute. it's printed at 64a of their exhibit. it says, "a state shall establish procedures," so the notion that hhs established them is obviously contrary to that. it says, "the state will identify people to enroll on their exchanges." well, they can't enroll anybody on their exchanges if there are no such exchanges in the state. therefore, by the plain language, if you adopt the notion that "exchange established by the state" means established by hhs, all of them need to lose their medicaid funding. >> could i follow up on something the general ended with, which and justice kennedy
7:40 pm
referred to, which is the need to read subsidies limited. but so is in a limited way. but so is the need to ensure that exemptions from tax liability are read in a limited way. and under your reading, we're giving more exemptions to employers not to provide insurance, more exemptions to states and others or to individuals, how does that work? i mean, you've got two competing -- >> no, no. you do get more exemptions for employers under our reading, but and the same principle applies. is it unambiguous? it's undisputed that one is unambiguous. >> well -- >> the dispute here is whether or not if they win under ambiguity, and they don't because the canon requires unambiguous statutes not to afford the tax credit. in terms of the employer mandate, i think that's very helpful in terms of justice kennedy's concern about
7:41 pm
federalism. under their view of the statute, the federal government gets to unilaterally impose on states there's an amicus from indiana describing this a requirement that states insure their own individuals. it implies the employer mandate to states. so their under their theory, the states are absolutely helpless to stop this federal intervention into their most basic personnel practices. whereas under our theory, they are able to say, no. so actually, the more intrusive view of the statute is theirs. in terms of the funding condition, head on, your honor i think my short answer is as follows -- there's no way to view this statute as more coercive or harmful than the medicaid version of medicaid that was approved by this court in nfib and, indeed, the nfib dissenting opinion pointed to this provision as something that was an acceptable noncoercive alternative. but in all events, even if there's a constitutional doubt under a novel constitutional question, as justice scalia pointed out, there's no
7:42 pm
alternative reading of the statute that avoids that because either way, you're intruding on state sovereignty. in terms of the anomaly, in terms of qualified individuals as predicted, solicitor general did not come up here and tell you, yes, if we prevail here under this theory, they're going to have to empty out the hhs exchanges. nor did he even respond to my argument that with respect to an exchange under the definitional section only applies to state exchanges. so i think we can view this as a complete tendentious litigation position and not a serious statutory interpretation. in terms of the qualified health plan that he discussed with you, justice alito, the complete answer to that is that is in 1311. 1311 only is talking about state established exchanges. it has no application to hhs exchanges, therefore, it can't possibly create an anomaly with respect to those hhs exchanges. >> thank you counsel. the case is submitted.
7:43 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. finance fun 2k [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] [inaudible] >> today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a.
7:44 pm
today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a., today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. -- today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a.
7:45 pm
>> my flame is ron pollack. i'm executive director of families u.s.a. which is the national organization for health care consumers and with me is gwen jackson from texas who is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies that were upheld today by the supreme court. make no mistake about this. today's decision has monumental significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of
7:46 pm
the land, it will remain the law of the land. it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health ensures is affordable, people will ten to receive those subsidies and -- will continue to receive those subdies and will ten to have health ensures. so this is a big sigh of relief for millions of people across the country who previously were uninsured. who previously couldn't afford health insurance. but who today can afford ensures because they are receiving subsidies. and today the court by its 6-3 margin upheld the provision of those subsidies. at this juncture, hopefully now that the affordable care act is clearly a stable part of america's health care system,
7:47 pm
hopefully we can move on hopefully we can have bipartisan efforts to try to make even further improvements with respect to america's health care system. making sure everyone has high quality health care and at an affordable price. but most importantly the affordable care act has produced enormous progress, more than one out of three people who were previously uninsured, have now received health coverage. and now that progress will ten. we will not go backwards. more and more people will be able to get the health coverage they need to protect their families. i want to interdues gwen jackson. -- introduce gwen jackson. she's from sugarland texas. she's one of the millions of people receiving the subsidies and whose subsidies will be protected. >> thank you, ron.
7:48 pm
so i am excited today. i'm excited. my husband and i are self-employed, both self-employed. and my husband had a severe tumor that required surgery. and we were uninsured. but through the marketplace, my husband was able to get extensive surgery. subsequently to get additional surgery. and may continue to have to have surgery as a result of this. this was an aggressive bone disease of his jaw and it impacted us gravely. but we are thankful today that the courts upheld this. and realize that affordable care is not just for -- i don't know, it's for everybody. it should be. it would have affected over six million people had they not agreed to this. but now we don't have to worry
7:49 pm
about this anymore. i just thank everyone that supported this act. gwen jackson. >> from sugarland, texas. >> gwen jackson. >> ron pollack. i'm exec testify director of families u.s.a. which is the national organization for health care consumers. i just want to say one additional thing, we have seen just extraordinary progress as a result of the affordable care act over the past two years. over 16 million people who were previously uninsured have gotten health coverage as a result of the affordable care act. and most of the people who have signed up in these marketplaces have done so as a result of subsidies. and these subsidies involve
7:50 pm
thousands of dollars in terms of relief, in terms of premium costs. today, the supreme court clearly held by a 6-3 margin that those subsidies will ten. that people are having health ensures will be able to ten getting health ensures, and we -- continue getting health ensures, and we will ten -- insurance, and we will continue to make progress in the years ahead so that everyone in america will have health insurance. thank you very much. >> my final say is to say a.c.a. is here to say and i thank god for that. >> thank you. >> my name is neal kateyl. i was former acting solicitor general of the united states. today's decision is a resounding victory for the president and for congress and for the american people.
7:51 pm
the supreme court by a 6-3 decision overwhelmingly upheld what the president has been saying all along, which is that these health ensures exchanges whether set -- insurance exchanges whether set up by the state or federal government, provides subsidies to individuals who can't otherwise afford them. i was sitting in the courtroom as the decision came down written by the chief justice, who afteral was appointed by president george w. bush -- after all was appointed by george w. bush. for the first 10 minutes you could see where the decision was headed. he started off by saying that the affordable care act was based on three premises. three legs of a stool. one was there was a lot of discrimination in health ensures. so you had to get rid of that discrimination with so-called guaranteed issue requirements. allowing everyone access to the ensures markets. the second piece of it was the chief said, congress said, you also have to have an individual
7:52 pm
mandate. you have to have something to ensure people buy it. the third piece was the subsidies to meak sure people could afford the insurance that the affordable care act requires them to have. the supreme court, chief justice said, that's precisely what the affordable care act does and how it's written. it was a resounding victory for the government and resonding victory for the current solicitor general, don verilli, who gave the oral argument of a lifetime explaining why the president's interpretation was a correct one. today we have for the second time in three years a republican dominated supreme court upholding the democratically elected affordable care act. resounding victory for the president and congress and for the american people. thank you. >> supreme court justice scalia dissented in today's supreme court desession upholding the
7:53 pm
affordable care act's health ensures subsidies. c-span spoke with the justice six years ago and part of our series on the supreme court. here's what justice scalia had to say about writing dissenting opinions. >> dissents are more finance to write. when of a dissent, it's yours. you say what you want. if somebody doesn't want to join it, who cares. you don't want to joan my dissent, fine. it's mine. these what he want to say. whener' writing the majority, you do not have that luxury. you have to craft it in a way that at least four other people can jump on and actually you try to craft it in a way that as many people as possible will jump on. which means accepting some suggestions, stylistic and otherwise, that you don't think is the best or are the best, but nonetheless in order to get everybody onboard you take them. >> here's some of our featured programs this weekend on the
7:54 pm
c-span networks. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on eshoo spotlight we'll look at the government and culture of iran. its relationship with the u.s. and nuclear am begs. sunday night at 6:30, profile interviews with two presidential candidates first kentucky republican senator rand paul. then vermont independent senator bernie sanders. on book tv on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 on afterwards, author nelson dennis on the history of puerto rico and its turbulent relationship with the united states. on sunday night at 7:45, historian h.w. brands recounts the life and political career of ronald reagan. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night, a little after 9:00, commemorating the 800th anniversary of the magna carta, deputy president of the united kingdom supreme court on how the document influenced both countries from the rights of liberty and property to, to limits on executive power.
7:55 pm
sunday night at 6:00 on american artifacts, the french sailing ship brought its representative the marquis de lafayette in 1780 and we were in yorktown virginia to cover the welcoming ceremony of the replica of that french ship. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe that most of these people should be on the couch themselves rather than psycho analyze people they never met. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they had a firm handshake or whether they have eye contact. but what i try to do when i meet people is listen what they say. you don't learn anything when you're talking. you learn a great deal when they are talking. >> there were many tragedies of
7:56 pm
richard nixon, he was self-conscious but not self-aware. end lst ironies. nixon did have a psychiatrist. he was an enternest, not technically a psychiatrist. and he said he was careful not to have nexton think he was analyzing him. but nixon went to hem because he had psycho somatic illnesses in the 1950's, head hurt, neck hurt. and he was given mild therapy. even though he went to one he hated psychiatrists. was always denouncing them. he was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realist eck way. one of the reasons -- realistic way. one of the reasons -- i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nexton was within of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very unself-reflective. this hrt hem because his lashing out at enemies is what destroyed him. >> evan thomas, author of "being nixon, a man divided" talks
7:57 pm
about the victories, defeat and inner turmoil of richard nixon. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> yesterday president obama held a gay pride reception at the white house. he was interrunted by a heckler who demanded an end to deportations. >> no, no, no. no, no, no. no, no, no. you're in my house. [applause] >> you know what? it's not respectful when you get invited to somebody -- you're not going --er' not going to get
7:58 pm
a good response from me by interrunting me like this. -- interrupting me like this. i'm sorry. p no. no. no. shame on you. you shouldn't be doing this. >> obama! obama! obama! >> could we escort this person out? come on. you can either stay and be quiet, or we'll have to teak you out. -- take you out. could we have this person removed, please. no. no. come on. come on, guys.
7:59 pm
[inaudible] [cheers and applause] >> as a general rule, i am just fine with a few hecklers. but not when i'mp in the house. -- when i'm up in the house. my attitude is, if you're eating the hor d'oeuvres, you know what i'm saying? ok. and drinking the booze.
8:00 pm
i know that's right. anyway. where was i? >> love you. >> i love you back. >> today, at the supreme court they upheld a key provision of the affordable care act -- exciting with the obama administration saying health exchanges should be available to anyone who qualifies, what are they are using a state or federal exchange. it is the second time the law has survived a supreme court challenge. here is the same outside the court earlier today. [cheering]
8:01 pm
>> aca is here to stay. >> tonight, we will year president obama's response next on c-span. and more reaction from outside the supreme court. and remarks from harry reid and mitch mcconnell. later, the supreme court oral argument in the case -- king versus burwell. and president obama's reaction to the ruling on the law, he was joined by vice president in the white house rose garden.
8:02 pm
president obama: good morning, everybody. have a seat. five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in america, health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all. over those five years, as we've worked to implement the affordable care act, there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks, i remember clearly. [laughter] but as the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working. it has changed and in some cases saved american lives. it's set this country on a smarter, stronger course.
8:03 pm
and today, after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. this morning the court upheld a critical part of this law. the part that made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. if the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded, millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars' worth of tax credits taken from them. for many, insurance would have become unaffordable again. many would have become uninsured again. ultimately, everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that's not what we do.
8:04 pm
that's not what america does. we move forward. so today is a victory for hardworking americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in the changing economy because of this law. if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. something that has covered millions of young people so far. that's because of this law. if you're a senior, or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. something that's saved nine million americans an average of $1,600 so far. if you're a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else even if you've had cancer or if your husband had heart disease or just because you're a woman. your insurer has to offer free preventive services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care because of this law.
8:05 pm
because of this law and because of today's decision, millions of americans who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of health care plans that cost less than $100 a month. and when it comes to pre-existing conditions, someday our grandkids will ask us, if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick, because that is something this law has ended for good. that affects everybody with health insurance, not just folks who got insurance through the affordable care act. all of america has protection it didn't have before. as the law's provisions have gradually taken effect, more than 16 million uninsured americans have gained coverage so far. nearly one in three americans who was uninsured a few years
8:06 pm
ago is insured today. the uninsured rate in america is the lowest since we began to keep records. that is something we can all be proud of. meanwhile, the law has helped hold the price of health care to its slowest growth in 50 years. if your family gets insurance through your job, or you're not using the affordable care act, you're still paying about $1,800 less per year on average than you would be if we hadn't done anything. by one leading measure, what business owners pay out in wages and salaries is now, finally growing faster than what they spend on health insurance. that hasn't happened in 17 years. and that's good for the workers. and it's good for the economy. the point is, this is not an abstract thing anymore. this is not a set of political talking points. this is reality.
8:07 pm
we can see how it is working this law is working exactly as it's supposed to. in many ways this law is working better than we expected it to. for all the misinformation campaigns, all the doomsday predictions, all the talk of death panels and job disruption, for all the repeal attempts, this law is now helping tens of millions of americans, and they've told me that it has changed their lives for the better. i've had moms come up and say my son was able to see a doctor and get diagnosed and catch a tumor early and he's alive today because of this law.
8:08 pm
this law is working. and it's going to keep doing just that. five years in, this is no longer about a law. this is not about the affordable care act. legislation or obamacare as a political football. this is health care in america. and unlike social security or medicare, a lot of americans still don't know what obamacare is beyond all the political noise in washington. across the country, there remain people who are directly benefiting from the law but don't even know it. and that's ok. there's no card that says obamacare when you enroll. but that is by design. for this has never been a government takeover of health care, despite cries to the contrary. this reform remains what it's always been a set of fair rule -- fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in america more
8:09 pm
affordable, more obtainable and more about you. the consumer. the american people. it's working. with this case behind us, let's be clear. we've still got work to do to make health care in america even better. we'll keep working to provide consumers with all the tools you need to make informed choices about your care, and keep working to increase the use of preventive care that avoids bigger problems down the road. we'll keep working to boost the steadily improving quality of care in hospitals. bring down costs even lower. make the system work even better. already we've seen reductions for example, in the number of readmissions in hospitals. that saves our society money, it saves families money, it makes people healthier. we're making progress. we've got to keep working to get more people covered.
8:10 pm
i'm going to work as hard as i can to convince more governors at state legislatures to take advantage of the law put politics aside, expand medicare and cover their citizens. we've still got states out there that for political reasons are not covering millions of people that they could be covering, despite the fact that the federal government's picking up the tab. so we've got more work to do. , what we're not going to do unravel what's been woven into the fabric of america. my greatest hope is that rather than keep refighting battles that have been settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together and make health care in america even better.
8:11 pm
three generations ago we chose to end an era when seniors were left to languish in poverty. we passed social security and slowly it was woven into this fabric of america and made a difference in the lives of millions of people. two generations ago, we chose to end an age when americans in their golden years didn't have the guarantee of health care. medicare was passed. and it helped millions of people. this generation of americans chose to finish the job. to turn the page on the past when our citizens could be denied coverage just for being sick. to close the books on a history where americans had no hope of finding decent health care and had to hang their chances on faith.
8:12 pm
we chose to write a new chapter where in a new economy americans are free to changer their jobs or start a business, chase a new idea raise a family, free from fear. secure in the knowledge that affordable health care is there for us and always will be. and that if we get sick, we're not going to lose our home. that if we get sick, that we're going to be able to still look after our families. that's what america is, we look out for one another, we root for one another's success. when we strive to do better and to be better than the generation that came before us and try to build something better for generations to come.
8:13 pm
that's why we do what we do. that's the whole point of public service. so, this was a good day for america. let's get back to work. [applause] b>> next, reaction from outside the supreme court. after the decision 6-3 was awe will hear from proponents,
8:14 pm
equity the acting solicitor general. ron: my name is ron pollack and i am the executive director of families usa. and with me, is gwen jackson from texas. who is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies that were upheld today by the supreme court. make no mistake about this today's decision has monumental significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land, it will remain the law of the land. >> yes! >> it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable, people will continue to receive those subsidies, and they will continue to have health insurance.
8:15 pm
so, this is a big sigh of relief for millions of people across the country who previously were uninsured, who previously couldn't afford health insurance, but who today can afford insurance because they are receiving subsidies. and today, the court by a 6-3 margin upheld the provision of those subsidies. so, at this juncture, hopefully, now that the affordable care act is clearly a stable part of america's health care system hopefully, we can move on. hopefully, we can have bipartisan efforts to try to make even further improvements with respect to america's health care system, making sure everyone has high-quality health care and at an affordable price. but most importantly, the affordable care act has produced enormous progress.
8:16 pm
more than one out of three people who were previously uninsured have now received health coverage. and now that progress will continue. we will not go backwards. and more and more people will be able to get the health coverage they need to protect their families. so, i want to introduce gwen jackson. gwen is from sugarland, texas. and gwen is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies and whose subsidies will be protected. gwen: yes. so, thank you, ron. so, i am excited today. i'm excited. my husband and i are self-employed, both self-employed. and my husband had a severe tumor that required surgery, and we were uninsured. but through the marketplace, my husband was able to get an extensive surgery, subsequently
8:17 pm
to get additional surgeries and may continue to have to have surgeries as a result of this. this was an aggressive bone disease of his jaw, and it impacted us greatly, but we are thankful today that the courts upheld this and realize that affordable care is not just for -- i don't know. it's for everybody, and it should be. it would have impacted over 6 million people, had they not agreed to this. but now, we don't have to worry about this anymore, and i just thank everyone that supported the act. gwen jackson. >> gwen jackson from sugarland texas. >> g-w-e-n jackson. >> ron, r-o-n, pollack, p like like peterl-k, with the national
8:18 pm
organization for health care consumers. i just want to say one additional thing. we have seen just extraordinary progress as a result of the affordable care act over the past two years. over 16 million people who were previously uninsured have gotten health coverage as a result of the affordable care act. and most of the people who have signed up in these marketplaces have done so as a result of subsidies, and these subsidies involve thousands of dollars in terms of relief, in terms of premium costs. today, the supreme court clearly held by a 6-3 margin that those subsidyies will continue. the people having health insurance will be able to continue getting health insurance, and we will continue to make progress in the years ahead so that, hopefully, at
8:19 pm
some point in the not-too-distant future, everyone in america will have health insurance. so, thank you very much. gwen: my final thing is to say aca is here to stay, and i thank god for that. ron: thank you. neil: hello. my name is neil katyal, a partner and former acting solicitor general of the united states. today's decision is a resounding victory for the president and for congress and for the american people. the supreme court by a 6-3 decision overwhelmingly upheld what the president has been saying all along, which is that these health insurance exchanges, whether set up by the state or federal government, provide subsidies to individuals who can't otherwise afford them. i was sitting in the courtroom as the decision came down,
8:20 pm
written by the chief justice who, after all, was appointed by president george w. bush. and for the first ten minutes, you could see right away where the decision was headed. the chief justice started off by saying that the affordable care act was based on three premises, three kind of legs of a stool. one was, there was a lot of discrimination in health insurance. and so, you had to get rid of that discrimination with so-called guaranteed issue requirements, allowing everyone access to the insurance markets. the second piece of it was the chief said, congress said, well, you also have to have an individual mandate. you have to have something to insure that people buy that insurance. and then the third piece of it was the subsidy, to make sure people could afford the insurance that the affordable care act requires them to have. the supreme court, the chief justice said that's precisely what the affordable care act does and how it's written. it was a resounding victory for
8:21 pm
the government and a resounding victory for the current solicitor general, don virlie, who gave the oral argument of a lifetime in explaining why the president's interpretation was the correct one. today, we have for the second time in three years a republican-dominated supreme court upholding the democratically elected affordable care act. it's a resounding victory for the president and for the congress and for the american people. thank you. request a number of senators weighed in on the decision. we will hear from senate minority leader harry reid, followed by majority leader mitch mcconnell. senator harry reid: today, the
8:22 pm
affordable care act obamacare has survived and attended cut to working families -- millions of working families. america won today. republicans were about to strip 6.5 million americans of their insurance. it is very simple. over 10 million americans are covered on the exchanges. and their in shore for the first time. 85% of these men and women receive tax credits to help them afford that coverage. but on top of that, 12 million more americans now have coverage for children's health insurance programs. they found more than eight in 10 results, people who have these programs, are satisfied with the
8:23 pm
programs. the act is not perfect. no law ever is. but this law is working for millions of americans approaching 20 million americans. once again, the affordable health care act prevailed. mr. president, i say respectfully to my senate colleagues stop banging your head against the wall. this legislation passed. it is the law of the nation. stop it. move on. the program should be pause for a minute and look back. mr. president, i don't know the number anymore. i don't know, i lost count of it. is at 75? certainly approaching 100 about
8:24 pm
to vote have taken place to repeal the law. never even came close to passing of course but have done it time and time again. stop it. think of the time wasted doing that. as einstein said, the pure definition of insanity is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again and gets the same results. i would hope republicans would rethink what they have been up to. reckless attempts to increase tax and millions of americans. that's what it amounted to. i was interested in looking at the paper today at what republicans have suggested to do if the supreme court ruled against this law. every one of them without exception would be a tremendous blow to the budgeting process in america. this bill makes america money.
8:25 pm
it's cut the deficit significant ly and that's what i say it makes the country money. it allows for more healthy nation. republicans were not content to jeopardize the health of americans. they wanted political advantage against president obama. they were happy trying to do that. so, mr. president, i also think it's important to note that republicans are worked on this legislation in the process going through the committees, they admit the legislation drafters never discussed withholding subsidies. republicans said that who worked on the legislation. so, mr. president, i think the public has basically had it with republicans trying to take away a law that protects them from insurance company discrimination when they get sick or hurt. enough is enough.
8:26 pm
i had an early thursday. i had a group of people there from nevada who have family members who suffered from cystic fibrosis. they were able to tell me that for the first time in the life of their children they could not be denied insurance. they are adults now. they can be denied insurance coverage as of this law. if it had been repealed, people with cystic fibrosis and many other diseases would not be able to get health insurance. so, mr. president, let's move on this topic. stop this, stop wasting time the time of the american people by trying to repeal the law. i appreciate the work done in the supreme court, a good decision, a strong decision that upheld the law. enough is enough. let's move on.
8:27 pm
mitch mcconnell mr. president : we're even discussing another one of obamacare's self-inflicted brushes with the brink yet again is the latest indictment of a law that's been a rolling disaster for the american people, a rolling disaster for the american people. today's ruling will not change obamacare's multitude of broken promises, cleveland resulted in millions, literally millions of americans losing their coverage they had and wanted to keep. today's ruling will not change obamacare's spectacular flops, spectacular flops from humiliating website debacles to the total collapse of exchanges in states run by the laws loudest cheerleaders. today's ruling will not change the skyrocketing cost in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays benefit the middle class so hard over the last few years
8:28 pm
. the politicians who forced it on the american people now have a choice. they can crow about obama cares care's latest wobble towards the edge, or work with us to address the ongoing negative impact on 2000 page law that makes miserable for so many of the same people it purported to help. >> the senator from south carolina. lindsey graham: i would like to be recognized for five minutes to speak in morning business. >> without objection. lindsey graham thank you. : i have two very brief comments. one involves our national security the world at large the other involves our nation as a whole. first as to the supreme court ruling. i'm surprised, i'm disappointed but the ruling is now in and senator mcconnell said it well.
8:29 pm
this doesn't mean that obamacare is fixed. it means that is going to continue until somebody finds a better way or will be left with obamacare for the rest of our lives and your children's lives and those that follow. 2016 race, domestically, will be centered on health care as the most dominant domestic issue in the country. if you're running for the house you are running for senate or running for president, here is what this supreme court ruling means. if the public wants to continue obamacare, which i think would be a huge mistake, vote democrat. if you want to repeal and replace the obamacare with something better for you and your family, bipartisan, vote republican. hillary clinton, the most likely
8:30 pm
democratic nominee, with the will make obamacare her own. whoever the republican party may nominate, the one thing i can assure you is that they will repeal and replace obamacare with something better. so to the people of the united states, you finally have a chance to have your say. this election in 2016 for the house and the senate and the white house will give you a chance to stop obamacare and replace it with something better for you and your children. take advantage of this opportunity. because if we fail to have the people in place in 2016, change course, obamacare becomes cemented in terms of the american health care system and
8:31 pm
our economic future. and i think it would be a mistake for the ages. >> the supreme court ruled 6-3 that subsidies can go to individuals and states run by the federal government. preserving subsidies in the 34 states that use the marketplace for insurance. chief justice john roberts wrote the decision for king versus burwell. >> mr. chief justice, it may please the court, this is a's rate forward case that dictates a result. >> would you please back up.
8:32 pm
these questions, we cannot put them logically. i am not eligible for health insurance from the government. there is a question that whether they are eligible for coverage etc.. >> i would refer you to the joint appendix on page 42. this is the government recitation of facts. they make it clear that he would have to spend $750 of his own money because of the irs. he was a veteran for 10 months in 1970. he is not eligible for any veteran service because if you serve search a -- the government has never disputed this. repetitive ginsburg:
8:33 pm
i don't think it was ever brought up. even if he were technically eligible, which he is not, there is the irs rule which says that the usual clarity of the irs making clear that you are only barred from receiving subsidies if you actually enrolled in a veterans health service. justice ginsburg: one of them was going to turn 65, would make them less eligible? carvin: she is obviously subject
8:34 pm
to the individual mandate well in advance. by virtue of the irs rule, she would have to spend $8,000 per year for health insurance. by virtue -- ginsburg: you said she would have to wait, so that a scare of 2015? carvin: she is obliged under the individual mandate to have insurance for nine months of the year. as of april 1, she would be subject to the penalty which would be alleviated -- ginsburg: i will ask the government if they agree with you on that. is there a question if she would qualify for a hardship exemption, even if she received the tax credit. carvin: i refer you to the joint appendix. that was the argument.
8:35 pm
we did not want to get into a factual dispute because we have such a clear standing. ginsburg: but you would have to establish and prove the standard. if it gets beyond the opening door. carvin: but only one plaintiff need standing. i articulated that the plaintiff -- ginsburg: i do not want to detain you on this anymore. but the deposition is on statute. carvin: thank you. returning to the merits, the only act says in claiming the subsidies are only available through an exchange established by the state. >> can you elaborate on that? i would appreciate in your elaboration, i have read that. and the statute is like the tax code.
8:36 pm
more than it is like the constitution. there are defined terms. in the words you just use concern a defined term. as i read the definition, there is a section, and it says, a quote, "the term exchange means an exchange established and exchange shall be a government agency, etc.. and that is established by the state." in 1321, the state does not set of that exchange, the federal secretary shall establish and operate such exchange. so, it says the secretary is to establish and operate such
8:37 pm
exchange. the only kind of exchange for which the act refers. which is, quote "an exchange established by the state under 1311." that is the definition. it tells the secretary to set up such an exchange. namely, a 1311 state exchange. there is nothing else in the statue. that is throughout what they are talking about. what is the problem? carvin: it tells the secretary to establish such exchange. what 36b is whether the state or secretary -- breyver:er: it is used 15 times. the terminology used is an exchange established by estate. that is the phrase. carvin: that is the phrase under
8:38 pm
3011. if that created some ambiguity as to establishing a 131221 or 1321 exchange, because it says the exchange is established by the state. not established by -- so eliminates any potential ambiguity. >> can i offer you a daily life example -- a linguistic up a little to what the section say here, what justice breyer was talking about. i have three clerks. well, elizabeth, amanda. my first clerk will, i would like you to write me a memo period elizabeth,, i want you to
8:39 pm
edit it. amanda, listen if will is too busy, i want you to write such memo. my question is, if will is too busy to write a memo, and amanda has to write such a memo, should elizabeth at the memo? [laughter] carvin: if you are going to create the memo, and amanda writes the memo, and you say the money will go if will writes a memo
8:40 pm
carvin: but the key point here is under section 1311, congress was not agnostic as to whether states establish the exchange. >> if i have the same clerks. [laughter] and amanda wrote the memo >> but
8:41 pm
congress was not agnostic as between state and federal exchanges. >> yes. that's a very important point, i think, because what you're saying is that the answer to the question really does depend on context, and it depends on an understanding of the law as a whole and whether they were agnostic. i agree with that. so it's not the simple four or five words because the four or five words in my example, it's obvious that elizabeth should edit the memo. it's the whole structure and context of the provision that suggests whether those instructions carry over to the substitute, isn't it? >> we implore you to examine these words in the context of the act as a whole because our argument becomes stronger for five reasons. to respond to justice breyer's point, he says such exchange connotes that it's the same person doing it. but look at the provision on territorial exchanges. it says, territories can establish such exchanges and then it says, "and shall be treated as a state." so -- >> yes, it does. but you say connote.
8:42 pm
no, it's not a question of connotation. it is a question of denotation. now what does that mean? it means that the federal government, the secretary, is establishing a thing for the state. and what is the thing? the thing that it is establishing for the state is defined as an exchange established by the state. >> to -- >> now, that person from mars, who's literal, which i usually am not, but a literalist, i think would have to read it that way. but if you're not a literalist, well, at least you could read it that way. now you want to go into the context if you want to go into the context, at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker. >> well, two points. >> the exchanges fall apart nobody can buy anything on them. you know the arguments. you've read the briefs. nobody can there are no customers. employers don't have to pay
8:43 pm
penalties as long as they use just people from virginia, but one maryland person comes you know all those arguments. so how does the context support you? >> well, again, under the literalist or nonliteralist interpretation, saying that hhs will establish such exchange doesn't suggest that the state has established such exchange if there was -- >> but the state, if made the -- >> if there was ambiguity in that regard just if i could finish my answer to justice breyer you look at a parallel provision where they use precisely the same language, and they said, "and shall be treated as a state," that language which is notably omitted from 1321 -- >> correct. >> and it's a basic principle of statutory construction that you interpret the same phrases the same way. and it shows that congress knew how to create equivalence between non-state exchanges and exchanges if and when it wanted to. sorry, justice sotomayor. >> take a breath. [laughter]
8:44 pm
>> i'm a little concerned with how you envision this provision working. you're saying that the hhs exchange can't be for the state so that it's established by the choice of the state. the choice the state had was establish your own exchange or let the federal government establish it for you. that was the choice. if we read it the way you're saying, then we're going to read a statute as intruding on the federal-state relationship, because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges. and you say, oh, no, they can't be coerced, but let's go back to what justice breyer was talking about. in those states that don't their citizens don't receive
8:45 pm
subsidies, we're going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid. states are obligated, insurers are obligated to make sure that in their states, whether they're part of this program or not, that they have guaranteed coverage, that children are covered till they're 26, and that they base their costs on community ratings. so if they have to do that, then costs are going to rise on every insurance plan offered in the country in those 34 states, 3 or 6 or 9 of your states will have tightened their medicaid eligibility requirements in contravention of the act, so they're taking money by breaking their compacts.
8:46 pm
they would have to lose all of their medicaid money. tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way? and if it is coercive in an unconstitutional way, in bond just i think it was last term, we said that is a primary statutory command, that we read a statute in a way where we don't impinge on the basic federal-state relationship. >> this court has never suggested outside the very unusual coercion context of the nfib medicaid that a funding condition somehow invades a state police power. obviously -- >> oh, we did it we said it last year. >> in an nf no, no. in bond, there the federal government was taking away a police power. here, all the federal government is doing is saying you want
8:47 pm
billions of free federal dollars. that's hardly invading state sovereignty and it's the kind of routine the funding condition that this court has upheld countless times. >> let me say that from the standpoint of the dynamics of federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the states are being told either create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral. we'll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on the subsidies. the cost of insurance will be sky high, but this is not coercion. it seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. >> two points, justice kennedy. one is the government's never made that argument. number two, i'd like to think -- >> sometimes we think of things the government doesn't. [laughter]
8:48 pm
>> well, i certainly hope you do in this case, but not on this question. what i'm trying to, quite seriously, justice kennedy convey is if this was unconstitutional, then the medicaid statute that this court approved in nfib would be unconstitutional. >> mr. carvin, what would the consequence of unconstitutionality be? very often you have an ambiguous provision, could be interpreted one way or another way. if interpreting it one way is unconstitutional, you interpret it the other way. >> correct. >> but do we have any case which says that when there is a clear provision, if it is unconstitutional, we can rewrite it? >> and that and that -- >> is there any case we have that says that? >> no, your honor. and that was really my point justice kennedy. think about the consequences when of the medicaid deal as being coercive. 22 states have said no to the medicaid deal. that has created a bizarre anomaly in the law. that if people making less than the poverty line are not available to any federal funds to help them with health insurance.
8:49 pm
>> i fully understand that, but i think the court and the counsel for both sides should confront the proposition that your argument raises a serious constitutional question. now, i'm not sure that the government would agree with that, but it is in the background of how we interpret this statute. >> your honor -- >> it may well be that you're correct as to these words, and there's nothing we can do. i understand that. >> there are many -- >> a, there's no savings construction to echo justice scalia's point, but, b, the point i want to make on the straight-up constitutionality is, if this is unconstitutional, then all of the provisions in the u.s. code that say to states if you do something for no child left behind, we will >> but this is this is quite different. >> in south carolina v. dole where the matter of funding for the highway, suppose congress said, and if you don't build the highways, you have to go 35 miles an hour all over the state. we wouldn't allow that.
8:50 pm
>> no. well, there, of course, you would be interfering with a basic state prerogative as to establish their limit, and they are the condition is not related to that. here the condition is perfectly related to it. >> mr. carvin -- >> we want to create something new >> mr. carvin, here's a -- you refer to the medicaid example. that's a familiar -- a grant in aid says to the state, here's the federal money and here's the conditions, take it or leave it. that's one pattern. but this pattern that we have says flexible state. you can you can have your program if you want it, and if you don't, there's a fallback. there's the federal program. i mean, that's a typical pattern. it's the pattern of the clean air act. you can have a state implementation plan, but state if you don't get up your plan there's a federal implementation plan. i have never seen anything like
8:51 pm
this where it's if you take what the statute says you can have in 1321, then you get these disastrous consequences. >> that's why this is much less risky a deal for congress. and what distinguishes it from medicaid as the dissenting opinion in nfib pointed out. in medicaid, congress is playing all in, take it or leave it. if they turn down the deal, then medicaid is completely thwarted. here, if they turn down the subsidy deal, they still get the valuable benefits of an exchange and there's not a scintilla of -- >> what are those benefits? what are the customers that can buy on it? what are the insurers that will sell on it? >> well, three points. one is we know textually that they thought exchanges without subsidies work, because again, they have territorial exchanges, but the government concedes no subsidies. >> that's not -- >> we have legislative history which -- >> mr. carvin, that's not what you said previously when you were here last time in this never-ending saga. [laughter] >> you said without the
8:52 pm
subsidies driving demand within the exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through exchanges. and then you said the insurance exchanges cannot operate as intended by congress absent the subsidies. >> that is entirely true. they wouldn't have operated as intended because congress intended all 50 states to take this deal. so eliminating -- >> so why create 1326 at all? obviously, they thought that some states wouldn't. >> well, they thought it was possible and -- >> very possible. >> and then -- >> because they set up a mechanism for that to happen. >> and then they what happens? you still get the exchange. it's not like medicaid where the entire federal program is thwarted. you get the benefits that were lauded. >> but nobody no one's going to visit the program if there are no subsidies because not enough people will buy the programs to stay in the exchanges. >> that is demonstrably untrue and not reflected anywhere in the legislative history. the legislative history quite clearly contradicts that.
8:53 pm
many senators got up and said there are very valuable benefits to the exchange, one-stop shopping, amazon, as president obama has said. the government came in the last case and told you these two things operate quite independently. we don't need exchange without subsidies. in contrast, there's not a scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral. not a word. >> wait a minute. that was the whole purpose that drove this bill because states had experimented with this, and those that didn't have subsidies or other provisions of the act didn't survive. >> they didn't have -- >> you said it yourself in the prior case. >> no. the prior case was about the individual mandate. the government came in and said the individual mandate is necessary to affect death spirals. no one, in the findings in congress or anywhere else, suggested that subsidies were available. will subsidies reduce the number of people available on the
8:54 pm
individual -- >> my problem my problem is that the reverse. you're talking about congress, how hiding, borrowing the phrase of one of my colleagues, a huge thing in a mousetrap. ok? because do you really believe that states fully understood that they were not going to get their citizens were not going to get subsidies if they let the federal government? what senator said that during the hearings? >> the same amount of senators who said that subsidies were available on hhs exchanges which is none. they didn't deal with it in the legislative history just as they didn't deal with medicaid because the statute was quite clear. let's talk about it in context again, justice sotomayor. the context is the only provisions in the act establishing any limit on the subsidies is found in 36b. so it's not a mouse hole. it's the place you'd expect to find it. it's the only place in the act that limits subsidies to purchases made on exchange. >> but it's a -- >> i don't know think that's quite right, mr. carvin.
8:55 pm
>> justice ginsburg. >> it's a tax code provision that's an implementation provision. it tells you how you compute the individual amount. >> it -- >> it it's not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find this. >> no. your honor, if that's true -- >> and if it -- >> sorry. please. >> what justice kagan just read to you, you had the idea that the subsidies were essential -- >> no. >> to have the thing work. that's what you told us last time. >> what i told you was it wouldn't work as expected, and that's because they thought this deal would work just like the medicaid deal where all 50 states would say yes, so you would have both of congressional purposes. >> then why in the world would they set up this whole extra thing if they didn't think anybody was going to take it? >> well, that was my response to justice sotomayor. that is completely unsupported empirical observation made post hoc by amicus. there's no reflection of that in the legislative history. indeed, the legislative history refutes it. >> mr. carvin, we've heard talk about this other case.
8:56 pm
did you win that other case? [laughter] >> so maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today? >> i'm really glad your honor said that. [laughter] >> and if i could return to context because i think -- >> i mean i'm sorry, mr. carvin. please. >> just very briefly, justice kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond, we've already talked about context. section 1311 is a key part of this context. it says in the strongest possible terms we want states to run these exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course, there is absolutely no incentive for states to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. whereas if you condition subsidies, congress accomplishes both of its goals. widespread subsidies, plus state-run exchanges. in terms of terms of art, again, there is language in the statute which says "exchanges," "exchanges under the act." those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and
8:57 pm
state-established exchanges. and, yet, the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a rational, english-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on hhs exchanges use the phrase "exchanges established by the state." he cannot provide to you any rational reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formulation. >> mr. carvin, why don't you take an extra ten minutes and maybe we'll give you a little bit more of a chance to talk. >> ok. fine. >> well, then, i'll ask a question. [laughter] >> well, if you're going to ruin my 10 minutes. >> no. i mean, let's go back to this question of where congress put this thing because putting aside constitutional issues, i mean, there's at least a presumption as we interpret statutes, that congress does not mean to impose heavy burdens and draconian choices on states unless it says so awfully clearly. and here and this goes back to
8:58 pm
what justice ginsburg was saying there's really nothing clear about this. i mean, this took a year and a half for anybody to even notice this language. and as justice ginsburg said it's put in not in the place that you would expect it to be put in, which is where it says to the states, here is the choice you have. it's not even put in where the statute defines who a qualified individual is or who is entitled to get the subsidies. rather, it comes in this technical formula that's directed to the department of the treasury saying how much the amount of the subsidy should be. and that seems to be it both makes no sense from congress's point of view, and in terms of our own point of view, in terms of interpreting statutes, that's not the clarity with which we require the government to speak when it's upsetting federal-state relations like this. >> i must respectfully disagree
8:59 pm
for three reasons, justice kagan. in the first place, of course, you where else would you expect a tax credit except in the tax code? that's where this was. you wouldn't put it in 42 u.s.c., which has nothing to do with taxes. it's the only place where exchange is limitations placed. you have three audiences here, not just states. you have to tell taxpayers what they're entitled to. you have to tell insurance companies when these subsidies are available. and you have states. so you have to put it in 36b. so the argument, i guess, the government is making is what you should have done is put half of it in 36b and half it in 1321 which, of course, would have confused everybody. 36b would say, exchanges period. then you'd go to 1321 and say when we said exchanges in 36b we meant established by the state. >> mr. carvin, if i were a state official and i was trying to decide whether my state should establish an exchange, and i
9:00 pm
wanted to know whether individuals who enrolled in a plan on my possible state-established exchange would get a credit, where would i look? >> exactly. the basic thesis here is these exchanges don't work without subsidies. you've read 1311. you've read 1321. now you're going to go find out where the subsidies are. that's 36b. they're hypothesizing state -- >> i think not, mr. carvin. i mean, i think the place i would look to find out about my choices is in the provision of the statute that talks about my choices. i think the last place i would look is a provision of the statute that talks about what is it coverage months for purposes of this subsection, which, by the way, isn't even the right subsection, but whatever. [laughter]