it is founded by a man born of chinese heritage, but he got his ph.d. in australia and he is a citizen of australia. they did not have the right environment to develop this, so he went back to china. he is now in china. i toward the plant. this company -- it was 100 meters by 400 meters. it was a high-tech modern plant that imports its raw materials from the united states.

energy is cheaper. it adds the technology -- it establishes a factors around the world. what is wrong with this picture? it is not succeeding because of cheap labor. it is focused on driving down at the manufacturer's cost, but it set the world record for solar efficiency as measured by a german scientific institute at 16.5%. it is low cost and good technology. rest easy, the united states still has the record. it is 24 or 25%. this is the thread that i see. america still has the opportunity to lead in a world

where -- a world that will need a new industrial revolution to give us the energy that we want. it is a way to secure our future prosperity, as noted. i think time is running out. i believe that we should not lose sight of this. federal support is going to be critical for economic competitiveness. this has occurred before. the wright brothers made the first plane. then the airline technology migrated to europe. most of our world war aces fly planes in france. in 1915, the u.s. government established the national -- national advisory it board for aviation.

that led to a resurgence back to the united states of recapturing the lead. many aircraft companies -- other countries think they can get into this game. including china. there is a report that came out very recently last half year called a business plan for america's energy future. it was comprised of a committee of the former ceo of lockheed martin, bill gates, chad holiday, general electric, and a

small committee of seven people said, what is a plan for america's energy future? they noted several things. the fraction -- if you look at the fraction of sales in the industry and how much gets put back into research and development, it is startling. in the pharmaceuticals, it is close to 19%. aerospace and defense, 11.5%. computers and electronics, 8%. what about energy? 0.03%. if you look at the federal budget, the 2010 federal budget is $6.30 trillion. how much of that is on energy research and development? 0.14%. 5.1 billion. the total science and energy budget is $12 billion. the trend is even more alarming.

although the stimulus funding provided a huge down payment of traditional r&d, are we going to return to this downward trend? are we going to do something about it? this report goes on to say, the government must play a key role in accelerating energy innovation. innovation in energy technology can generate significant quantifiable public benefits. these public benefits -- methods include cleaner air and improved public helps and international diplomacy and protection from energy shocks related to economic disruption. currently, these benefits are neither recognized or ordered by

the free market. the energy business requires investment of capital that is a skill beyond the risk threshold for most private-sector investors. this exacerbates -- creates a vicious cycle of status quo behavior. i urge you to look at this report. there are little snippets from the industrial leaders. one of my favorites is from norm augustine. the one thing that is clear, based on my own career, and when faced with a major challenge of high technological content in a time of austerity, the last thing one should underfunding is r&d. to do so is the equivalent of removing an engine from an overloaded aircraft in order to reduce its weight. there is a report from the

president's council of advisers on science and technology that has been released this morning. it's as many similar things. -- it says many similar things. what can investment do? what we see and what the department of energy and is investing in our very exciting technologies at affordable electrical vehicles, batteries that can allow 500 miles range. new transformer death approaches for making biofuel that could dramatically lower the cost. a program that will produce an abundance of the fuel directly from sunlight. we have a program that says, how can we get solar energy down? at factor for, you do not need

any subsidies. that is the use of super computers. to skip a very expensive design steps. there has been a case proven in a collaboration and the department of energy were they designed for the first time a diesel engine on the computer simulated and built it. they did not need any more prototypes. the people in the company were very skeptical that it could happen. the decreased the development costs by 15%.

we can do this in many areas. we have introduced to innovative research funding programs. one is called advanced research product for energy. what this this is a research program that a short-term to -- you have to get a private thunder to do it. it is high risk, high reward. we are n introduced -- interested in finding incremental work. we are interested in game changing work. it is a takeoff from an air battery that are used in pele's hearing aids today. can you make the same rechargeable last july lugger using whatever combination of metals and oxide and we think it

has a very distinct possibility of giving cars 500 mile ranges. at a third of the cost. they have three years to make this happen. there is a good shot at it. another thing we are doing is energy innovation. we have to recognize that some research cannot be done in two or three years. it needs a bigger group of scientists working under the same group. in many of the groups, they are developing technology. as one example -- you look at the way a plant makes chemical energy. you take some light, it takes

water, it uses sunlight and energy to splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen and takes carbon dioxide and reduces the carbon dioxide and build a carbohydrate. the question is, can we design something that begins to replicate what a plant does, but we have an advantage. we have access to materials that the biological world does not have access to. we can design something better, in principle. we started by looking at a ways that large bird flu. the wright brothers played had the wings that walk around. they use to gasoline engine instead of muscle power. today's jet engines use materials that nature cannot

produce. the question is, can we do this and are of special bodice and a sense? -- ken we do this in our official paracentesis -- photosynthesis? advances in enough science and we have a shot in a cost-effective way. we face a choice today. will we maintain america is innovation leadership or will we fall behind? let's seize this opportunity. we really cannot afford not to. there are some differences between this event and the event

of 1957. while we are competing, there is an opportunity to collaborate also. we have much to collaborate with china, india, and other countries. china is going to be building a new infrastructure of buildings, cities, roads, transmission lines. in 202030 -- in 23, what india will look like -- 80% of what they will have been 2030 it does not exist today. these countries present markets. we can test this. this will go up -- this will work. our infrastructure is largely

grown. our population is not growing the way that india's and the mass migration of chinese people from the farmland into the city is not occurring. there is an opportunity to work with china and india. in this moment of today, i urge that we do two things. we should formulate sensible long-range energy policies that have pipe are dissents -- that have a bipartisan support. china is doing this and it seems to be working. we should do this. long-range policies. what about increasing energy research and development? private investment do not recoup the full value of the benefits. companies are elected to do some of the early stage research and development.

the government has to say, this is the path that we should be going 9 a. -- in. well creation is driven by innovation and it is nuts -- and it is not about quantity. i will stop and take questions. [applause] >> thank you pour speaking with us. we have numerous and high- quality questions from our audience today. our first question from the audience, during his 2008 presidential campaign, president obama referred to a new energy and economy as my number one priority.

in the past two years, congress has passed health care reform, a financial reform, the stimulus bill. energy bill did not pass. are you disappointed? >> of course, i am disappointed. we are here now. i do not think there is a lot of good that comets from me say that i am disappointed. therefore, you stop trying? nope. i am hoping that the united states can recognize the economic opportunities that all of europe has recognized and developed countries in asia have recognized. this is so important. i am optimistic that america will wake up and sees the opportunity. -- seize the opportunity.

>> much of your strategy is based on a price for carbon. now that it is looking almost impossible for congress to pass something like that, are you concerned the economics for fixing the climate are now impossible? >> price will be placed on carbon eventually. having said that, it is true that carbon capture and storage , it will always cost more to capture the carbon and store it. that is equivalent to saying that if you are a city and you want to treat the sewage or just

don't fit into the river, the lowest cost -- the lowest cost is for you to dump it into the river. it is cheaper for you, but not the city downstream. the total costs are much cheaper if you say, it is better to treat it at the source and eliminate that. this is why there should be a price on carbon. we are still hopeful that nuclear can be cost effective and it can hold its own. one of the drivers we are driving in wind and solar and all these other technologies is that we think it can be cheaper than fossil fuel. >> what is the role in the international meeting in the climate change? >> the answer is, yes, of

course, we can. it requires bipartisan will add support to do this. my task is to develop and nurture the technology to help industry go in the right direction. in the end, when the rubber hits the road, this is what will allow us to do what we have to do. >> for many years, u.s. graduate programs have drawn large numbers of corn estimates. changes to u.s. immigration policy post 9/11 and rising economic opportunities are leading more such students to

return home after earning their degrees. what can the u.s. do to offset this trend? >> one of the recommendations is that when a student comes to the united states and its a ph.d. in science and engineering and does well, staple a green card next to the diploma. what happens in graduate education in science and education in the united states is that grants pay for it. if they do well, you do not want to encourage bad investment to go back -- that investment to go back. things are changing. they come to the united states to get an education. why? they are the best in the world, bar none. that is recognized. if they come here to get an

education and then go back, as a young person, we have lost a great deal. the majority of graduate students getting a ph.d. is in science and engineering are foreign-born. if i look across the country in the last three or four years especially, young people are waking up to the energy and climate change problem and that is drawing them into science. in my day, maybe i should go into science and engineering. the young kids want to go back into this. this is a good sign. it is important that the government recognizes that this

is a good sign and take the advantage of it. this will be a cornerstone for our economic prosperity. >> we started seeing news reports that president obama may shortly be announcing a pay freeze for federal employees. one of the issues -- are you aware of the federal pay freeze? how does such an action affect your efforts to recruit scientists? >> we will see how that unfolds. this has to be approved by congress. in terms of the ability to attract quality people, a number of people have been willing to take cuts in pay because they

feel that is that important. he had to resign from uc- berkeley in order to come work for the government. he gave that a tenured position. he was entering into incredible years of high productivity. we have a bunch of others like that. it is tough and you have to be a little bit crazy and a whole lot patriotic, but we can still get some people. >> some republicans have intimated that they may try to rescind some recovery act bonds. what would that mean for the energy department and your efforts? >> i hope they do not.

these are an important down payment to what we have to do. after the recovery act, you cannot spend at that rate. we are looking at how we can use our precious resources going into the future in order to go forward. again, this is fundamentally a bipartisan/non-partisan issue. it is all about economic prosperity. >> there are several local climate change skeptics. the u.s. anticipate that you will be going back to fighting the climate change debate itself rather than pushing for solutions to it? >> i hope not. if anything, over the last half

a dozen years, the evidence has got more compelling. you get a little bit sideways on this debate if you say, have been proven with certainty that this is happening? i maintain that you do not need 100% certainty. 80 or 90% is enough to say, ok, how do you want to plan your personal life? you just bought a home, electrician comes in and says, the wiring is shocked. you have to replace the wiring. it will cost $15,000. your strapped. how can you replace the wiring? you get another estimate. i do not know, but the next

electrician says, you have to do it. it will be bad if you don't. do you shop around for the y in any thousand electricians who will say, it is ok? not really. do you actually go and say, that is a threat, but it is more cost-effective if i make sure my fire insurance is up to date? if family is living in it could burn down. you bite the bullet and say, i am going to do this. it is not even that. this is an economic opportunity. it is not as though you have to make this expenditure. you make it because in the long run, for the future economic help of the country, you have to make these investments.

>> you addressed china and its l alternative energy development in these remarks -- in your remarks. what research or development is the energy department pursuing it to develop u.s. capacity to produce rare earth materials? >> all the above. that was a wake-up call. if you depend on a single -- you run a risk. there has been a mine in california that has been shot down. we are in discussions with them on how to help them start up again. there are a number of -- rare earth are not that rare.

you have to be very careful on how to mine them. we are working on that. many other countries have grown concerned and are looking at other places for a supply. we are looking at ways to use them more efficiently. we are looking at technological ways to get the same benefits. it depends on whether it is used in electronics for a very high efficiency motors or displays before televisions. we are looking at alternatives subsidies. the price has gone up by tenfold. that is worrisome. we are doing a lot in terms of looking for subsidies. >> you do a lot of work would

ith the usca. december 31, there is a terrorist act and a subsidy for -- a tariff and a subsidy for ethanol. >> let me just say that -- this is a complicated economic issue as well. the department of energy is focusing on -- corning based ethanol is a good way of getting it going. americans can drive their vehicles using agricultural based tools. we are focused primarily on developing the new technologies that can supersede ethanol made

from starches and sugars. we are focusing on ways that we can go beyond ethanol. ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel are much better things to use. they do not require changing the infrastructure. we are focusing on how you take biofuels that make direct substitutes for these tools that can be stuck in any ratio. because of this, we have started three bio energy research centers on the same aerobic of these energy -- rubik of these energy hubs.

they took the coli -- the coli -- e. coli, and when you feed them sugars, they will produce substitutes for gasoline and kerosene. when they reported this discovery, i called up the director. that is great. what the need to make this commercially viable? pick a price. it has to be within 80% of what we think it will produce and we are not there yet. by then, by the time it got published, private companies try to optimize it.

the scientists said that this could actually work. we can find out in a year or two. let's do a prototype production to see what other things we need to figure out. the idea that you get a really smart people trying to solve a problem is the way we have to go. we see lots of good evidence of that coming along. >> this is a matchup of two questions. the administration has indicated a desire to pursue development of nuclear, but also a position against dumping spent fuel. how off the table is the project in assuming that it is, how does the industry should plan to deal with the lingering issue of nuclear waste disposal? >> first, there are two things.

we believe that it is the right and proper thing to restart the american nuclear industry. we believe that this is not only good for going -- to decrease our carbon emissions, but it is good technologically. it is good for us economically. the united states used to be a leader in the this, but this is one of the things that we have lost. the leadership is now in france, and japan. china is going in such a big wave that -- they have plans to go forward. the problem of the nuclear waste is a problem that can be solved. it is but a scientific problem and a political problem. the political problem is that you have to engage in very, very

early and make people in the area want it. how can that be? we have an existent proof -- there is a low-level waste repository that we run in new mexico. initially, the people were a little bit worried about this. you put it under the ground in a salt formation. it has a disadvantage. when you -- the formation has proven to be stable for tens of millions of years. you can radioactively date that. the downside is after you stick it in this comment you cannot get --, you cannot get back at it. the thing has been operating for

10 years. there has been no accidents. it has been done very safely. it isn't uncommon generation for the communities around it. income -- it is an u generation for the communities around it. there are better strategies to approach this. the nuclear regulatory agency has already said that we can keep the storage where it is right now. the commission's task -- tell us what we should be doing. what are the best options? what type of storage do you want? it can be lots of things. they are free to decide what to do. knowing that you have 50 years, we are not at a crisis situation

and. we can do a much better job this time. that is the task of the commission. having said that, would you say, let's not do anything for the next 50 years? not really. if we think about it, this is going to work. you know that it will work. let's move ahead. we start our nuclear industry. it is important that the united states restart. the non-proliferation issues, the united states is still one of the leaders in fighting for nonproliferation. if we are a player in the civilian nuclear industry, that will help us as well. there are a variety of reasons why we should become players. >> one topic that has not been

discussed in great detail to date is energy efficiency. what do you see as some of the most promising initiatives in that area? >> energy efficiency, i am so glad that you raised this. as you may know, it is the lowest hanging fruit. it is actually something that we are pushing very, very strongly. we are pushing very hard to show that you can -- energy efficiency means saving money. if there really means saving

money, then it -- this is something bad to -- this is something that to happen by itself. why isn't it happening? look at capital and investment, ignorance, but a lot of habits, we have to change that. energy efficiency is the fastest way to make us more competitive, save money. it is going to be saving a lot of dollars. this energy efficiency is something very big, especially when you think of cars. we can do better there. we think you can build a building that can decrease the energy consumption by a factor

of four in ways that would pay for itself so that -- we start innovation to show that you can design these. it can be built. retrofits may be a factor, too. demonstrate that if you do this, you save money. wants to demonstrate that, we hope that it takes off by itself. there is something that you have to be very conscious of. you have to be willing -- know the current technology. the next factor will require additional investment. are you willing to invest in a lifetime of a 60-year building to get payback time in 10 years?

if you say no, you cannot do some of those things. that is something that investment in the long term is one of the issues that we have to overcome in our thinking of investment. >> we are almost out of time. on december 2, we of the chairman and ceo of the coca- cola company. our first luncheon will be on january 12 with the head of the american red cross. we would also like to present our speaker with the national press club mug. [laughter] thank you. [applause] to get a better sense of steven chu, the man, we have one final question. you have a ph.d.

you have your nobel prize in physics. as many of us know, having lived and worked in washington, there are a lot of people in washington you are not so smart. present company excepted, please, how does the secretary of energy deal with people who just do not get it? [laughter] >> please tell my mother that i am smarter than she thinks. i do not think that you go into any job with an attitude like that. i was a professor for many years. my attitude always -- i would have an idea and i would say, i want to look -- i want to do

this. my reaction was constantly, ok. i went back and said, what did i not explain right? they would go back and say, ok. once i went back three times and my boss's boss looked at me and said, if you are going to argue about what to do this experiment, i have better things to do. he let me do it. he was not thrilled. if you do not succeed the first time, try again. or they can try to convince you that they are right. that is part of this discussion. i could be wrong. ok? you have this give-and-take.

this guy turned out to be a very good friend of mine that i have known for 35 years now. 32 years. he is now in the department of energy. he forgive me. >> thank you, secretary. thank you to the staff of the national press club. thank you to the staff of the energy department. thank you for coming here today. this meeting is adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the hse recessed about halfway through the bills that were scheduled for work today. for managers were not ready for debate. members agreed to a one-month delay in medicare payments to doctors. it now goes on to president obama. live coverage when the house returns at 6:00 to vote on two of those measures debated this afternoon. tonight, three perspectives on how technology is being used in other countries to promote government transparencies. it is at 9 at -- 8:00 eastern. >> i am the education program specialist. each year, we conduct a video documentary competition. this year's theme is washington, d.c..

we would like you to explain how the federal government has affected an issue when event in your life and committee. select a topic that interests you. the goal is used -- is for you to fully researched your topic, provide different point of view. for more information, visit our web site, studentcam.org. >> hillary clinton condemned the leaking the budget tables on the wikileaks web site today. she spoke with reporters at the state department about the leak. immediately following the briefing, secretary clinton

headed to the summit. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. i want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from the united states government computers. in my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today, i have had very productive discussions on this issue.

the united states strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. it puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. this administration is advancing a robust foreign- policy that is focused on advancing america's national interest and leading up the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time. from fixing the global economy to sporting international terrorism to stop the threat -- the spread of catastrophic weapons. in every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these games. let's be clear. this disclosure is not just an

attack on americans -- america's foreign policy interests. it is an attack on the international community. the alliances and partnerships, the partnership and -- advance economic prosperity. i am confident that the partnerships that the obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. the president and i have made these partnerships a priority and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve and they will remain at the center of our efforts. i will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen state department cables, but i can say that the united states deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential.

including private discussions between counterparts for our diplomats personal assessments and observations. i want to make clear that our officials foreign-policy is not to sell its through these messages, but here in washington. our policy is a matter of public record. i would also add, to the american people and to our friends and partners, i want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. i have directed at specific actions be taken at the state department in addition to the new security safeguards by the department of defense and elsewhere to protect state department information so that

this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again. relations between government are not the only concern created by the publication of this material. u.s. diplomats meet with local human-rights workers, a journalist, religious leaders, and others outside of government to offer their own candid insights. these conversations also depend on trust and confidence. for example, if an anti- corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes a law and documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person's identity could have serious repercussions, in prison as -- imprisonment, torture, even death. whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents,

it is clear that releasing them poses a real risk to real people and often to the very people who have dedicated their allies to protecting others. inthey're all lies protecting others. sudden they mistakenly applaud those are -- those who are responsible. there is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people and there is nothing braved about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations upon which our common security depends. there has been examples in history in which official contact has been made public in the name of exposure, wrongdoings, or misdeeds. this is not one of those cases. in contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that

american diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. they are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. they are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems and secure a dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human-rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. this is a role that america place in the world. this is the role our diplomats played in serving america. it should make everyone of us proud. the work of our diplomats does not just benefits america, but also billions of others around the globe. in addition to endangering particular individuals, but disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.

people of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communication, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. every country, including the united states, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. every country, including the united states, must be able to have honest private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. i know that diplomats are around the world share this view. this is not unique to diplomacy. in almost every profession, whether it is law or journalism, finance or medicine, or academia, or running a small business, people will lie on confidential communications to do their jobs. -- the lion -- rely on a

confidential communications to do their jobs. if someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. despite some of the rhetoric we have for the past few days, confidential communications did not run counter to the public interest. their fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest. in america, we welcome the continuing debate about pressing questions of public policy. we have elections about them. that is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. it is part of who we are and it is a priority for this administration. stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate. in theast few days, i have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world. we have all agreed that we will

continue to focus on the issues and the tasks at hand. in that spirit, the president and i remain committed to productive communication with our partners as we seek to build a better world for all. thank you and i would be glad to take a few questis. >> can you tell us how damaging -- >> [inaudible] >> where are you going, charlie? >> madam secretary, are you embarrassed by these personally, professionally? what have the league's done to the u.s. so far? >> charlie, as i said in a statement, based on the many conversations that i have had with my counterparts, i am confident that the partnerships and relationships in that we

have built in this administration will withstand this challenge. the president and i have made these partnerships a priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign policy. we are proud of the progress that we have made over the last 22 months. every single day, u.s. government representatives engaged with hundreds, if not thousands of government representatives and members of civil society from around the world. they carry out the goals and the interests and the values of the united states. it is imperative that we have candid reporting from those who are in the field working with their counterparts in order to inform our decision making back here in washington. i can tell you that in my

conversations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, a do not worry about it. you should see what we say about you. i think this is well understood in the diplomatic community as part of the give and take. i would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals. >> madam secretary, but -- global the us look like? a lot of the people who have been mentioned are going to have conversations with you. do you think that it will cause your discomfort to engage in conversation with those leaders? one issue that has been brought up into the daylight is the debate about iran. what do you think the impact is

going to be of those documents on the debate about iran it? >> you are right. we will be seeing in dozens of my counterparts. i will continue the conversations that i have started with som. -- some. i will seek out others. i want personally to impress upon them the importance that i place on the kind of open, a productive discussions that we have had to date. my intention to continue working closely with them.

obviously, this is a matter of great concern. we do not want anyone in any of thatcountry's -- countries could be affected by these alleged leaks to have any doubts about our intentions. that is why i stressed that to policy is made in washington. the president and die have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range of global challenges that we face. we will continue to do so and we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our friends and partners real-world and to deal in a very clear idea way with those with whom we have differences. it brings me to iran.

it should not be a surprise to anyone that iran is a source of great concern, not only in the united states. what comes through in every meeting that i have had anywhere in the world is a concern about actions and intentions. but if anything, any of the comments that are being reported upon, allegedly, from the cables, confirm the fact that iran poses a very serious threats in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern that is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against iran and. it did not happen because the united states went out and said

please do this for us. it happened because countries, once they evaluated the evidence concerning iran possible actions and intentions breached the same conclusions the united states reached, that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. if anyone reading the stories about these alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude, the concern about iran is well-founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of policy we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

i believe you are in very good hands. >> we are going live now to the u.s. house. members are coming in for a couple of boats debated earlier today. you are watching live on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the whole number of the house is 434. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the house an enrolled bill. clerk sufficient payment and therapy relief act of 2010. the court: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will

resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order, h.r. 5877 by the yeas and nays and house

the court: members, please clear the well. the court: please clear the well.

>> house will be in order. house will be in order. the gentlelady from nevada is

recognized. the house will be in order. please take -- clear your conversations from the floor. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: will members please take their conversations from the floor.

the gentlelady may proceed. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. berkley: i thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to talk about an i am pending crisis in our health care system. if this congress can't figure out a way to reimburse the doctors that take care of our older americans, our fellow citizens, our mothers, fathers and grandparents that are on medicare, this nation is going to be in a world of hurt.

it is time that we put aside petty politics and figure out how we are going to reimburse the doctors and keep the medicare system going. there are millions of americans, certainly hundreds of thousands of seniors in the district that i represent that depend on medicare to have their health care needs met. you take away their doctors, you take away their chance of getting medical care. let's get moving on this and provide a permanent fix to reimbursing the doctors and let help our seniors stay on medicare and i yield back the balance of my me. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. thank you, madam speaker. the children's trust hosted its sixth annual champions for children award ceremony just recently in south florida. it honored the exceptional individual who dedicate their

time and services to the children of south florida. the children's trust is anal truistic humanitarian organization committed to the children and families of our south florida community. it operates on a simple motto, madam speaker. because all children are our children. it is this belief that has motivated the children's trust since its inception in the year 2002. it has collaborated with children and parents throughout our communities in an attempt to strengthen the family nd and to help facilitate opportunities , to allow the children of south florida to achieve their full potential. i encourage all throughout our community to take an interest in this great ornization because indeed all children are our children. thank you for the time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? >> house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the hou will be in order. mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, the people who want to build a mosque at ground zero now want american taxpayers to pay $5 million to help build that mosque. those who beg for american money to build an insult mosque on ground zero disrespect the 3,000 people of all faiths, nations and religions that were murdered by radical islamic faction on 9/11. ground zero is a sacred american soil. it's where america was ambushed by killers from the sky. a tax-pair funded mosque at the site comes across as a memorial and a tribute to the radical terrorists that murdered in the name of religion. such a plan is unwise,

insensitive and shameful. those who wish to build a mosque should instead build a monument and a memorial to the victims of 9/11. victims that include christians, jews and muslims. otherwise ground zero is off limits. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to remind my colleagues that as diabetes awareness month comes to a close we must work and continue to work together to protect future generations from this disease. cases of diabetes among americans is growing at an alarming rate. mr. paulsen: today nearly 24 minute children and adults suffer frothis disease. that's nearly one in every three

americans and another 57 million americans are at risk. madam speaker, in addition to the alarming number of people affected by dbetes, the cost associated with this disease are far too great. the american diabetes association estimates that the total cost associated with diabetes care costs approximately $174 billion annually. with health care costs rising and the number of diagnosed diabetics at an all-time high, we must work to prevent diabetes through education and awareness as well as work to lower the cost of care associated with this disease. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. ginny brown-waite of florida for today and november 30, mr. burton of indiana for today, mr. defazio of oregon for today and the balance of the week, mr. ber lack of pennsylvania for today,

ms. kilpatrick of michigan for today, mr. wu of oregon for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house and include therein extraneous material, mrs. jones -- mr. jones today, november 30 and december 1, 2, 3 and 6 for five minutes each. mr. poe today, november 30 and december 1, 2, 3 and 6 for five minutes each. mr. garrett today, november 30, december 1, 2 and 3 for five minutes each. mr. burton today, november 30, december 1, 2 and 3, five minute each -- minutes each.

mr. moran, december 1, 2, 3 and 6, five minutes each. mr. lincoln diaz-balart today, november 30, december 1, 2 and 3 for five minutes each. ms. ros-lehtinen today, november 30 and december 1, 2 and 3, five minutes each. and mr. graves of georgia today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. ms. kaptur, ohio, mrs. mr. defazio, oregon, ms. woolsey, california. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and

under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. jones of north carolina. mr. diaz-balart: i ask unanimous consent to speak outside of -- out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to honor the memory of a friend who passed away just a few days ago, a larger than life personality, a generous and extraordinary man. a sign of the distinguished cuban family, his grandfather purchased the famed cigar factory in 1875, the cifuentes family makes the best in the

world and he symbolized his remarkable family. when the cuban communist tyranny confiscated all businesses in cuba in 1960, including to the tobacco business of the cifuentes family, he came to the united states of america, a country he loved and admired deeply. he married dagmar, an extraordinary woman, in 1962. that year he volunteered to join the united states army. years later he received an honorable discharge and the commendation of the then army secretary advance. they moved to spain where much of their extended family resided. their children were born there.

as their family grew, so did leo's business success. but he never stopped loving the united states of america nor the country of his birth, cuba. leo, along with his son and jr., have been ball works in the fight for cuba's freedom. madam speaker, just this last july, when i visited spain to meet with recently arrived former cuban political prisoners , leo, leo jr. and rafa helped me to lend a hand to our heroes. the just released from the gulag former political prisoners. and that's typical of their generosity and their patriotism. i send my deepest condolences to

dagmar, leo jr., rafa and the entire wonderful family of leo cifuentes. i will never forget him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bag. mr. defazio of oregon. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the trip taken by the u.s. delegation to the nato summit in lisbon was an expensive one indeed. the decision made there to extend our military occupation of afghanistan into 2014 and possibly beyond will ect untold, unsustainable, unacceptable costs.

a war that has already tragically cost us 1,400 money lives will now take many hundreds more. a war that has already drained the treasurey of $370 billion will drive us further into debt and a war that has undermined our national security goals will continue to make us less safe. here we are, patting down holiday travelers at the airport while we escalate a war that is foe meanting, rather than fighting terrorism. that's the current state of our national security policy. talk about missing the forest for the trees. this decision to stay the disastrous course in afghanistan represents a broken promise, plain and simple. a promise that was to begin ending at least begin ending this war in july of next year.

meanwhile as the timetable extends, the tactics seem to grow more violent. remember a shock and you a -- or remember shock and awe in iraq? well, we're now engaged in what one american officer called awe, shock and fire power in the form of enormous tanks now rolling into afghanistan for the first time during this war. as if afghans needed another reminder of the 1980's soviet invasion which was hesky on tank artillery and left an indelible mark on the national intelligence. the optics here, madam speaker, are very bad. and the rhetoric is disturbing as well, with one official boasting to "the washington post" that, and i quote him, he says, we've taken the gloves off. and another saying that

counteru.s. is, and i quote him, doesn't mean -- countersuth, and quote him, doesn't mean you don't blow up stuff or kill people who need to be killed. of course the problem is that we're killing a lot of people who don't need to be killed. innocent civilians cost -- caught in the crossfire. how exactly are we supposed to win people's hearts and minds when we're destroying their homes and exterminating their families? when will we understand that this kind of warfare, this entire war is the best propaganda tool the taliban could ask for? and besides, madam speaker, tank deployment flies directly in the face of the coin doctrine that is supposed to be guiding our afghanisn tragedy. we've all heard general petraeus philosophical about u.s. troops moving within communities, helping to bond between the

people and their government. except that tanks and night raids are about just the opposite. removing our troops from afghanistan communities in favor of launching deadly explosives from a safe distance. but apparently nato officials have come up with a cativ way out of that contradiction. "the post" reports that an afghan farmer asked a general at a public meeting, why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes? he was told that when villagers travel to town to submit a claim for property damage, it helps better connect them to their government. you can imagine a response more galling, madam speaker? now we're not only destroying the property, we're insulting their intelligence too. this must end, it must end now

and, madam speaker, we must bring our troops home. our troops shouldn't come home a -- should have come home a long time ago. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida re? without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i thank the speaker for the time and i am pleased, so pleased, to recognize the miami children's hospital ventilation assisted children's center camp and congratulate them on their 25th anniversary. this extraordinary camp serves children who depend upon medical technology to breathe. it gives them a chance to just be kids for a week. founded in 1986 by dr. moises senzer it's grown from to

require a year's worth of planning and preparation. it's the first of its kind in the nation and families come from across the cruntry to participate. for this one week every year, children who are usually all but confined to their hospital rooms and their homes can experience camp activities and a near-normal life. this week is a week of firsts. first time dancing, first time bowling, first time swimming. vacc camp is not about what the campers cannot do, it's about what they can do. through a partnership with shake a leg miami, the camp even developed a special sailboat that campers can steer with their chins, regardless of how much medical equipment they require. other field trips include cruising on biscayne bay, shopping at bayside marketplace,

a day at the beach and lunch at the hard rocca fay. often this is the one time a year these -- the hard rock cafe. often this is the one same a year the children have a chance to feel sunshine on their faces. they make the camp unique by putting on carnival nights and themed dance party bus above all the camp offers the chance to escape wheelchair, medical tubes and medical equipment by going swimming. the process of getting each child into the pool takes over 20 minutes and five to six volunteers. vacc camp is unique for the opportunities it provides to its campers and their families. caring for a child dependent upon technology to breathe puts an incredible amount of pressure on even the strongest families. parents are responsible for intensive, 24-hour care without a day off. of all the difficulties of

caring for a sick child, one of the most trying is social isolation. the camp serves not just the kids but also their siblings and their parents. with programs like parent's dinner out, this camp is a time to have fun and take a day off. what a luxury. the camp is an opportunity to -- for these children and their parents to see they're not alone to build a community and support structure. camp is a life-changing week for the families and the selfless volunteers who make it happen. sponsored by miami children's hospital and supported by hundreds of volunteers, the camp is completely free for the families. the camp depends not only on the medical professionals who use their vacation days but also on its many teen volunteers, local high school students interact with campers to make the week truly special and very much fun

and they leave the week with lifelong friendships. camp is much more of a life changing event for these law school students as it has been for the campers themselves. i am so appreciative, madam speaker, of the hard work and the countless volunteers who come together to make this camp a magical week year after year. to dr. senzer and everyone involved at the camp, you have touched the lives of so many families and help sod many become happier, healthier children. happy 25th anniversary vacc camp and keep up the good work. thank you, madam chair, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. garrett of new jersey. mr. burton of indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to honor the 148th cavalry of the infantry brigade combat team based in georgia. on september 2, 2010 they received the bronze star, an army db and army commendation medals for their personal valor for their behavior in an operation designed in order to persuade the citizens of afghanistan that it was safe for them to participate in the electoral process in a dangerous area. it was through their bravery and boldness in this operation that the following men have been recognized for their outstanding

actions. the bronze star medal was awarded to captain nathaniel c. stone of monticello, georgia, sergeant first class kenneth brooks of calhoun, georgia, staff sergeant william bookow, sergeant mathis, and christopherlow of savanna, georgia. receiving the army commendation medal was staff sergeant moore of noonan georgia and staff sergeant evans. a large numb of taliban had swrd the valley to reinforce insurgents there are there -- already there. at the start of their missions, u.s. forces took heavy fire from enemy forces from every direction. after a fellow captain was mortally wounded and the assisting soldier, specialistlow was wounded and incapacitated,

they swung into action. captain stone was -- led a force to evacuate specialistlow and the fallen soldier. specialist evans treated specialistlow wounds while -- we's wounds while staving off enemy fire. e on scythe commander immediately assessed the situation and the course of action for evacuation. they soon realized the only way to retrieve the casualties was to immediately employ their men to lay down fire at a tree line that had been the source of the heaviest assault. once the men were in place and able to begin an aggressive attack, captain stone and another soldier sprinted up to high ground without regard for their safety. upon reaching specialist evans and specialist lowe, they

realized specialist lowe was losing blood and needed to be evacuated. captain evans sprint -- one captain sprinted toward vehicles where captain lowe was placed. he sprinted through enemy fire to make sure the specialist received medical attention. this quick thinking and courageous action without regard for their own safety saved specialist lowe's life and ensured the retrieval of their fellow man. during the operation, staff sergeant moore, sergeant mathis, around sergeant bookaw endured enemy fire. they led valiantly, calmly and decisively. though they were under heavy fire they pressed on and unfortunately sustained two casualties. however, they were able to maneuver their forces and hold

overwatch positions until the quick reaction force could respond to medevac any casualties and help neutralize the enemy threat. they oversaw the defense of their combat outpost upon return of their mission. a few of these men have noted the operation to be one of the toughest battles they have fought but it is because after their strength and skill that a taliban commander and almost two dozen insurgents fell, helping the united states and our allies grow stronger, protecting her from those who wished to do her harm. the courageous action these men showed the commitment to their mission to each other and to their country. mamings i have taken this opportunity to commend the heroic actions of this men and i'd like to take the opportunity to thank them. i thank them for sacrificing the lives and livelihoods for this country. i want to thank their families for showing tremendous support, strength and resiliency and i

want to be sure they and their brothers and sisters across the united states armed forces know that we at home are always thinking and supportive of them. americans can sleep more peacefully, americans can live their lives more freely, knowing that soldiers like these brave men from georgia's first squadron 10, 8th cavalry of the 48th infantry brigade combat team are out there fight for our free dms. god bless them and their families and may the lord continue to bless this great cause called america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report think title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1736. resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendments to the bill h.r. 4783 to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash

contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in chile and extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in haiti may be accelerated. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is are recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker.

we've been talking for a couple of years now about the rule of law and how it -- the rules we set up for ourselveses are are rules that glue our society together but there are times when there are rules that people have a misconception about and this happens more and more when you're back home, somebody will come to you in the business community or even in their personal life and complain about something that -- some way the government was interfering with their life. there are times when, in my -- at least in my office where people come in griping about it and it's not the federal government, it's rarely not the federal government but sometime it's not the federal government, sometimes it's the state government. but almost always, people presume that the law that is intrusive upon their life -- these are people not in the regular course of dealing with

washington, those laws were passed by congress. so therefore congress did this to you. and in a way, it's true. tonight i want to talk about federal regulatory authority, federal regulations. you know, we're in a time right now that is, some would argue is at least equal to the great depression in a time of joblessness and the time of economic stagnation. and some would argue we're second to the great depression. whichever it is, we have literally hundreds of thousands and millions of people in this country who need a job. and they need to work. they need -- they want to work. they want to be out there and be productive members of society. and that's the most important thing in their life. you know, feeding your family,

people go to great, great strains to try to make sure they can provide for their family. and i think all americans feel that way. nothing hurts more than to realize whether it's your fault or the fault othe economy or what, you can't find a job a town you live in or maybe even any place in driving distance of where you live you hesitate to move across the country to someplace where you hear there are jobs because it's so disruptive to your family, it's -- the pressure is tremendously bad on people in this country right now. and there are folks that are trying to create jobs and they have things that are interfering with their lives. you know, there's all kinds of reasons why you get stagnation, you get companies that are

fearful to create jobs, that people are, as we hear, quote, hording their profits, and one of the reasons is uncertainty. i don't know what's going to happen. until i know what's going to happen, i'm going to hold on to my money. that might be actually some pretty good planning in many ways. but there's also that, i can't explain it factor. that is in people's lives. i can't explain it, i just don't feel good about things right now. i believe that a lot of the i can't explain it, i just don't feel good about things right now feeling that a lot of americans have, actually, you can go back to what f.d.r. said, only thing we have to fear is fear itself. well, we can't define what causes us to be afraid in many instances. but there are things that go on that we create in this congress,

through acts of congress we create authorities, agencies, boards, commissions, departments, all kinds of entities that have career federal bureaucrats that work for them and we give them what's called regulatory authority. and regulatory authority basically gives them to write additional rules to implement the overall plan of what the congress perceived to be a need of the country and passed in a form of a piece of legislation. so from that standpoint, i guess all rules are resulting fault of the congress. but the regulatory authority in the vast majority of instances, the regulations are never addressed by the congress. tonight some of my friends are joining me and i'm really proud to have them here, we're going to talk about the fact that this is not the first time this has

been recognized as an interference in the ability to create growth and jobs in this country. back in the 1990's, back in, i believe it was right after the 1994 republican takeover of the house, the contract with america, there were a lot of pieces of legislations passed. some of the things they tried to do were things that would get some of the regulators off the backs of small and large businesses. which would prevent the creation of wealth, prevent the creation of jobs. and they passed something called a congressional review act and it was signed into law by president clinton. the congressional review act requires all federal agencies to submit any new major regulation, that's what i was telling you about, agencies have regulaty

authority and those regulations are like laws written by bureaucrats to congress for 60 days prior to the enactment of this that regulation, during which time congress can vote to block the new rules. with president obama in the white house and reid still in the senate, the c.r.a., the congressional review act, gives the house the potential to look at these things and to realize that probably the largest concentration of regulatory rules that will ever be written in this country will probably be written or are in the process of being written on obamacare right now. and so you hear all these many things that are going on, if you're just watching television, about the secretary has come up with a new rule and has granted

a new waiver to the rules, a temporary waiver, a permanent waiver, a 60-day rule, rule forever. rules are actually epidemic. last year the federal government issued a total of 3,316 new rules and regulations, an average of 13 rules a day, 78 of those new rules were major rules. a major rule is any rule that may result in an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or significant adverse affect on the economy. we have already seen that obamacare seems to be the mother of those -- of all rules. the congressional research service reports that obamacare

gives federal agencies the responsibility and authority to, quote, fill in the blanks, fill in the details, for the legislation that was passed by this congress and submitted for regulations. there are more than 40 provisions in the health care overhaul that require, permit or contemplate federal rule making. we have this tool called the c.r.a.. and i've got a board here that tells you a little bit about it. i told you some of it. it passed in front of the small business regulatory enforcement act, fairness act, of 1996, part of the contract for america advancement act of 1996. the purpose was to allow congress to review every new federal regulation issued by the government, government agencies or passed by the joint resolution anoverrule that regulation. the way it works is federal

agencies shall submit each house of congress and to the comptroller general, a cprehensive report on any major proposed rule. congress has 60 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of any rule. the senate must vote on the c.r.a. resolution of disapproval. if this house votes to disapprove the rule. so that's the way it works. and this is a tool that i have a lot of questions with. i used to -- my first job out of law school, when i was a young, stupid lawyer, and had a lot to learn, was to be drafting legislation for the texas legislative council. and i didn't learn a lot there but i learned one thing. when the word shall appeared it meant you do it. if it said may, you had options. but if the legislation says

shall submit, you shall submit it. you should do it. you have to do it. but interestingly enough, i don't think that this tells you what happens if you don't. so there's a lot of questions in this bill. this bill needs some further work. and a good friend of mine, representative jeff davis, has actually been looking into putting a little bit more teeth into the congress' power to oversee these regulations so at this time i'm going to yield as much time as he wishes to consume to my friend, geoff davis, to talk about what he looked at when he started with his act that he proposed and tell us about it. take the time you need. mr. davis: thank you, judge. it's good to be with you tonight working on a common cause on this issue. to so many of us have seen not simply in the last two years or the last four years, but a growth of government really over the last 50 years, it's

unprecedented and it's increasing ery year in size. the intent behind the congressional review act in 1991 -- 1996 was absolutely solid. but when it went into law, one of the challenges that happened was that law didn't really have the teeth in it to force accountability of the agency community with the congress. and i'm going to talk a little bit about some of the things that led up to our introduction of the ranse act, h.r. 3765 the regulations of the executive in needs of scrutiny act. it's a long name to give the analogy of pulling back on this unbridled growth or race to increase the size of the government. the only time that the congressional review act has been effectively used to block the implementation of a regulation was the rule from the clinton administration, department of labor, that was going to be implemented in early 2001 and it was struck down by the incoming congress and then signed into law by president

bush as one of his earliest legislative actions in 2001. since that time republican administration and a subsequent democrat administration, we have seen an explosion of regulation. we have seen agencies, we can name virtually any agency in the federal government that on account of two reasons, one, a lack of congressional oversight and enforcement, where an agency can literally go out and move independent of the clear intent of congress, because of some of the nebulous language that's allowed to go into bills, and the second thing that happens in that as well is that these regulations get promulgated as a means of an administration in the executive branch to in effect subvert what the devire of the congress is. we saw it in immigration policy, we've seen it in environmental policy. and we've seen it in aspects of defense policy. no child left behind is filled with unfunded mandates that are placed upon local school systems. and the cumulative sum of this

is a huge amount of the economy. compliance with regulation comes at a cost. there's a scoring system of rules and what we chose to focus on was major rules which i'll get to in a minute. a major rule is a one that has an accumulative economic effect of $100 million a year. that's a lot of money. when you look at a country of over 300 million people, we can get there very quickly. let me give you a personal exame and for people who might be watching this broadcast tonight, i ask you this question. has your sewer bill gone up or your war bill gone up in the last five years? the majority of communities in this country have seen a great increase due to a mandate, an unfunded mandate from the environmental protection agency, for storm water compliance. is environmental stewardship irrelevant? absolutely. but here's the bigger question. i'll go to northern connecticut -- kentucky. just at the tipping point of economic growth, about five years ago, we had a consent

decree was negotiated in a draconian fashion, really dictated to the water district in northern kentucky, for the three counties where i live. that decree to mandate a change in storm water runoff and how that was going to be handled in our cities and those three counties, of our 24 counties, was an $800 million unfunded mandate. on three counties in kentucky. it overnight doubled everybody's water and sewer bills. the sewer bills were the first thing that came. the second thing we saw, though, because we're one of the more prosperous parts of the state, as painful and unpleasant as it was, if it were the correct thing to do, that was means to cope with that. but i have towns in my district, particularly in the rural areas and some of the poorer areas, areas where folks do not have the tax base, smaller cities that have a diminishing in age

population, that are heavily centered on retirees, where the cost of storm water compliance is more than the city budget. and there is absolutely no relief at all or context to be applied in these regulations. i was very concerned about this and have spoken out on it and a constituent came and talked to me and he just asked this question, he said, how come you all can't vote on these regulations? and we went to work and we went back and looked at the original intent of the congressional review act and the more that our legislative staff and i studied that, what we began to see was, it takes a action of the house and the senate overwhelmingly to repeal that regulation. i thought about this from my time in manufacturing and operations, learning how to build things, if we can create something the equivalent of a stop light, then we'll simply stop the process, that becomes the basis of this. that was the genesis of what became the raines act. there is no way for accountability to be given to

the american people when it's a faceless executive in an agency, when it's a department, a subdepartment within an agency that issues a regulation, comments are rarely carried out. as you noted earlier, we very rarely actually see those regulations briefed. it just comes in a thick congressional register of thousands of pages. here's the thing that came to mind when we looked at that idea of how do he will -- to deal with this from a voting perspective. what my friend shared opened our eyes to do an amendment to the congressional review act that would change the nature of it from congress has the option to, as you know, our good friends from the senate are somewhat slower than we are in being able to get things done. there are more abilities to throw a stumbling block in place. we decided to go with that same idea. let's create mandated process that will force these regulations to be vetted so the american people have somebody to hold accountable. if the head of the e.p.a., for example, regional director of the e.p.a. came into my district in august and made a statement

to the effect of, if we have to put you out of business and you have to move to other parts of the country to have a policy that we think is more acceptable, then so be it. but there's no ability for them to in effect stre back at the ballot box and express another opinion. these are not people that disagree with the e.p.a. as an agency, it's a question of constitutional authority and it should be invested here. the power of the purse is in the house of representatives and the financial impact of these regulations should be in the house as well. this is what we proposed. to rein in the government. what would happen is that at the end of the comment period, instead of being enforced unilaterally upon the american people or being an endless remediation fights, what would happen very simply is those bills or those regular laces would come back here to -- regulations would come back here to capitol hill, we'd have a vote, a no excuses vote, where members of congress of all 435 districts would have to vote and be accountable back to their citizens for the decision they

took, if we're going to have aned $800 million increase in water and sewer bills they would vote. if we're going to increase the unfunded mandates on our schools, there would be members of congress and the senate who would have to take that vote. i think it would have a restraining fact, knowing that people had an out, if there was accountability. this extends into so many areasworks e.p.a. rules, with the multiple rules that you mentionedworks health care, with the new financial regular laces, we could go on -- regulations, we could go on. and the sum of this economically is devastating to our country and it moves us away from looking at ways to be more efficient. i say put the stop in place. this bill will do that. the act, h.r. 3765 makes us all accountable to our citizens and the benefits of this are two fold. the first benefit that comes out of it is this is nonpartisan. in the bush administration, as some of us have talked we noticed regulations that were being brought about and implemented that were against the better interests of our economy, of our communities and many parts of the country. there wasn't an open and public

debate to be able to address that and the thing that this would do is it would push power back to the legislature where it needs to be, stopping the unbridled growth of the executive branch so voters always have a say. the second thing i believe it would do, we saw this with the health care bill, thes of pages of nebulous language, there was no way to fully vet the consequences of that. i believe a bill like this, or what the raines act would do, is take those rules and lead to more streamlined, crisp, eloquent legislative language that had the clear intent of congress stated and avoid the ability of any outside agency to support the will of congress. with that, i appreciate being part of this discussion tonight and i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding back my good friend from georgia, mr. lynn westmoreland is here, i'll

let him make the comment he is wished to make. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank my friend from texas and my friend from kentucky for introducing the raines act and the gentleman from texas for your work in this body late at night like this, talking about things we need to do, what the public expects us to do as far as ethics and as far as reining in some of the government we have. i think what a lot of people don't understand is that this new t.s.a. rule, this is something that did not come out of congress. this came out of the department of homeland security, making their own rules. the obamacare bill passed out of here, i believe there's 111 agencies, boards and conditions that each one of those will write their own rules and regs.

the c.b.o. or anybody else trying to tell us how much money this is going to cost is impossible. we don't know what type of rules and regs the agencies, boards and commissions will come up with. we had a hearing in the small business committee, had somebody there from the g.a.o., we asked them, said, you know, when these agencies get this legislation, do they ever go back and talk to the member that authored the legislation or the committee that it came back through? no. not that we know of. it's not a rule, not a practice. so while this body might pass something with a certain legislative intent, by the time it gets to that agency, they write rules and regs that go way beyond where this body wanted it to go, perhaps, maybe not as far as we wanted it to go, there's not any concern.

the gentleman from kentucky mentioned the water bill, the clean air act, the clean water act, it's gone way beyond what the intention of this body was with the e.p.a. and the fish and wildlife and the other agencies that got hold of that bill. we've got the -- the reins act talks about portland cement, the new regulations that the e.p.a. is trying to put on that. a lot of people don't know this, but if you live on a dirt road with the new dust requirements the e.p.a. may come out with, you're not going to be able to drive down that dirt road and create dust. i live on a dirt road, i'm going to tell you, i don't know how to keep it from having dust unless you have a rainstorm, then you're going to get mud. mr. carter: going to have to have a water truck in front of you to get to the house. mr. westmoreland: absolutely.

you look at these things and this is insanity. we have people come up all the time and say, why did you pass this law that you can't have dust or you can't have spray that blows if you're spraying your pastures or your fields or your bushes? and you go, well, you know, that wasn't in the law. that's not what we had. that's something that the e.p.a. did or that's something that the i.r.s. did or that's something that homeland security did on their own. so i just think this is a great piece of legislation. i just appreciate you -- mr. carter: i do too. mr. westmoreland: i appreciate you opening up the debate to it. mr. carter: talking about the portland cement issue. first off, weir not talking about a company called port cement, we're talking about a process for making cement. it's kind of interesting. the cement is the second most

consumed product globally in the world. the first is water. so i mean, honestly, justbout everything that is constructed, buildings and roadways, has something to do with cement. and the prosection -- projections on what this is going to do to the portland cement industry, the people who make the concrete that we depend on, you know, probably 90% of the skyscrapers in the world are used -- use some form of concrete to build a skyscraper. it's a major building term for a thriving economy. and what's -- what they're telling us now is that construction spending amounts to about $1 trillion annually. and that's about a fourth of the gross domestic product. the cement industry has declined

in relation to the national economic downturn so has the construction industry. if they do this thing, this could cost us somewhere between -- somewhere around 153,000 jobs nationwide. that's lost jobs. we're trying to find a way to create jobs in this congress. that's lost jobs. it will -- it'll generate $7.5 billion in wages -- the cement industry does that. according to the plan about 27.5 billion of america's economic activity occurred in cement manufacturing industry, almost $931 million in indirect tax revenues generated for state and local governments. the economic footprint for the cement industry is $1 trillion

and it is very important. what can happen? according to a study done by s.m.u., which happens to be in the great state of texas, they've looked at what this regulation that's being proposed by the regulators and when we say regulators, remember, nobody elected these people to this job, most of them work under the civil service idea that once they're here, unless they commit armed robbery you can't get them out of a job. they're employees for life. they sit around their little offices and come up with these new ideas and they expand upon the thoughts that congress had when we created these agencies and i would argue that e.p.a. has expanded beyond anybody's imagination. the things that they can do. and they don't think about the fact that, like the blowing, crop dusting or spraying your

roses in the yard if your wind is bwing, you're in violation of the e.p.a. regulations they're proposing. they don't realize what the impact is on human beings. but what will happen to us on the portland cement industry is right now, our major competition is overseas anyway. china and japan are importing -- maybe china now, tons of concrete into the united states every year. if we put our manufacturers out of business, because of this extremely expensive regulation that would cause them to be noncompetitive in the world market, even if they tried to compete, their increased cost would be such that they'd be put out of business from a market standpoint. other people would have a better price. even with shipping costs. they'd have a better price. but more so, you lose all the jobs that are created around here for those -- for the cement industry.

if you pass these regulations. these are the kinds of things that congress ought to be looking at because we are responsible for people of the united states. this house is the most -- it's called the people's house because every two years, we have to look our neighbors in the face and answer those questions that you reported your neighbors ask you, why in the world did you guys do this? we're getting blamed for it anyway, we ought to at least look into it and if we can do something about it, we ought to do something about it. congressman davis is back, i'm glad to see you, we're talking about the portland cement case, quite honestly, it's disastrous. mr. davis: i agree hole whote hart -- whole heartedly with you. we can extend that into every area of small business. for those with experience in manufacturing and any number of

business areas, construction, that deal with the use of chemicals, resins, compounds, there's a compliance requirement called material safety data sheet, msds compliance, it requires a very large amount of documentation in a business. we look at the portland cement, very large businesses that have these burdens placed on them that are very high, but even very small businesses. i saw, working with many manufacturing companies in my time before coming to congress, 12 years before coming to congress after i left the service, these regulations create an undue hidden tax. it's not the idea of being anti-regulation, standards can be good and helpful, but it's at the -- the point at which the compliance is mandated an think context of that. the case in point, what i saw that typified this more than anything else, my dry cleaners that i used for years before i

ended up running for office. braxton's cleaners. it was started by a couple of entrepreneurs that wanted to build this business they built it, it grew they had high quality customer service like all of white house started small businesses, we encountered the idea of how to deal with the hidden costs of run aring any small business. they hit a point they were doing so much business, they were starting satellite operations, that the owner decided that he would insll another dry cleaning machine he suddenly found out that by wanting to do that, he had an e.p.a. mandate through the state environmental cabinet, through the commonwealth of kentucky, he had to have bore holes drilled through his floor to see if dry cleaning fluid in any capacity had got intoon the groundwater. the standard that had been levied, this is going back to 1999, the standard levied by the environmental protection agency

for the amount of particlalt matter, you and i could drink it, it would be awful stuff and make us sick but won't kill us, it had been listed as a possible carcinogen. you would have to pump this into somebody's body, but it was so few parts per million it was stricter than our drinking water. they found one teaspoon of water, they said, you have to remediate that. the inspector said -- he said, i don't have the noun do that. the inspector said, we'll shut you down he spent $50,000 to tear up the floor and clean up one teaspoon of water. this is not dow chemical pumping out millions of millions of opinion gallons of toxic

chemicals the local dry cleaners. i had friends running a garage, creating job they run into the same kinds of issues. they lose when they are complying and seeking to fulfill the intent of the law. i'll mention one other, i see the egregious example of regulatory intrusion. the purpose, for example, of the transportation security administration is to provide security for the traveling public. that's the premise. i sat in here on october 31, 2001, as a candidate for congress during the anthrax scare and watched norman mineta, former clinton administration secretary of transportation owho stayed over in the bush administration, pleading as the father of two airline pilots not to implement the possess the way it was going to come about he said it will create an onerous cost, an excessive economic burden on the airline industry and won't materially change the outcome of security and he

advocated the use of a much more principle based and systemic method used by israelis which involves questioning and gets the bags before they go into the airport. now we have, i think we're getting into fourth amendment grounds, not as a lawyer, i'm not one, but now we have threats already penetrated a secure area. mr. carter: i don't know if this is clear for the cameras, but this is a t.s.a. employee do doing a leg search of a nun. go ahead. mr. davis: with that visual are, keep in mind, i've spent the last 26 years of my life traveling in and out of the middle east in various capacities, serving there in the military, in and out of the region, traveling on business, and now as a member of congress and i've had a chance to watch a system that is virtually

flawless and it's based on a series of questions that are not intrusive, it's a free society. they've maintained their civil liberties with a dramatically higher threat of terrorism but what we have done is the burach tri-ization of security -- is the -- nobody will take down an airplane with a box cutter or pocket knife the way they did on 9/11. now there have been multiple instances where people had erratic behavior, mainly trying to get to the lavatory, and they were tackled by passengers. americans will fight back. the situation has changed and we're fighting the last battle, fighting the last terrorist attack, as opposed to something like the israeli system which incurs virtually now cost -- no cost and keeps a robust flying public very safe and it begins with asking questions. people bring up the argument,

you can't do that because it's profiling. i would disagree with the misuse of that term. we are driving people away from traveling right now because of these intrusions. it's creating a huge burden on the flying public and it's entirely unnecessary because it's checking innocent people when 99% of our capacity is devoted to checking people that any train security inspector would know that's not even there. that's a poor use of assets. i was traveling out of israel, alone with a backpack, 17 years ago. on a short trip that i had to make into jerusalem. at the time because of what i did and where i had been in the military, i had lots of stamps from countries, all over that area. some who weren't particularly friendly to israel. i was asked questions, a blue-eyed caucasian male from the united states. and they began asking me a series of questions. they looked at the passport stamps, moved me over, said, we'd like you to talk to this person over here. the other 200-plus people who were going on that flight in fact were moved right on

through. i was asked questions for over and hour and a half. there was no cost to those other people. the airline were able to verify that i was,a no threat and a legitimate customer. that system works tanned works today. it's almost impossible for somebody to fool that system. the other thing is we don't need these billions of dollars spent on these scanners that are being overused. again, it comes down to situation awareness. we can address this issue with a lower cost by stepping back and applying what you and congressman westmoreland have been talking about tonight. what's the problem we want to solve and give us the best abilities to deal with this after the fact. again, before regulations like this should be implemented, i believe we need to have a vote of congress. let the will of the people be made known in this rather than simply giving away another set of our liberties without asking that question when in fact it comes at a significant cost. i think if our taxpayers who don't travel regularly understood the amount of money that was spent on hardware that

can still be penetrated by some time type of a serious threat that was outside that -- type of a serious threat, we'd be in a different world. this doesn't impute the motivation of the folks in the transportation security agency. i know there's an ongoing argument below the senior management levels of what works and what doesn't work by those who have lived in that world. they live in a high-threat environment and have been able to thrive. i believe we can do that but let's come back to these constitutional underpinnings that regulations and rules that are going to govern the lives, the cummings and goings of -- comings and goings of all americans and not done, brought into the unilateral decision of one individual. mr. carter: reclaiming my time for a moment, this morning in the airport coming to washington, i was on one of the earliest flights going out of austin, texas, which -- we're a midsized city. i've never seen such lines in my life. i mean, they were a good

half-mile long. they were back and forth and back and forth. and all i could think was, i got there early enough to by the time i got through i could sit and watch the rest of those lines build up. they built up and built up and built up. it was unbelievable. the guy set sitting next to me said, there are will be a lot of people missing their flights today. these were all the people i guess who were coming back from thanksgiving and instead of flying on sunday when the cost was more they waited until monday to get a cheaper flight. well, what's that going to do to the airline industry? it's going to cost -- they're going to have planes flying empty. they're going to have people demanding refunds. gths to hurt the airline industry and -- it's going to hurt the airline industry. we're going to have people coming in here saying, holy cao, t.s.a. put together this regulation and now all these airlines are in serious financial problems and we're going to have to buy the airline

industry like we bought the automobile industry. and i think we should get out of that business. that's why this congress or somebody who -- must respond to the american people needs to be involved. that's why i think putting teeth in the congressional review act to the iranians act is good. i -- reins act is good. i yield. 20 minutes. mr. westmoreland: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to go back to the cement -- mr. carter: all right, let's go back to it. mr. westmoreland: being an old builder that really spent my whole life in construction, when you're talking about -- when you're talking about -- you want me to yield to the lady? ok. i'm sorry. mr. carter: yield to the gentlelady. >> thank you for yielding for an extraneous matter.

madam speaker, i rise to present a privileged report from the committee on standards and official conduct for filing under the rule. and i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. mr. carter: sorry i didn't see you there. the clerk: resolution in the matter of representative charles lee rangel. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from texas. you may proceed. mr. carter: all right. go ahead, mr. westmoreland. mr. westmoreland: thank you. going back to the cement issue, you know threarks a byproduct that comes from power plants, it's called fly ash. fly ash is a product that is a byproduct that comes out of the coal-burning plants and it's used in concrete and it keeps it from setting up so rapidly to allow the people to work with it, to get a good finish on it,

takes it longer to set up. in the winter you can either put calcium in the concrete to make it dry harder or to at least make it dry if it's cold outside or you can leave the fly ash out of it and use a bag mix which makes the concrete more expensive. the e.p.a. came out with a rule or they're looking at a rule that would make this fly ash a toxin and so the cement industry, the concrete industry, went to them and said, look, we're mixing this stuff with concrete, once the concrete's poured, it's encased. i mean, you know, it's part of the mix. it's concrete. and so the e.p.a. said, yeah, that makes sense. it's not there but they still were still having hearings or at least from people that are trying to help with the rule making about burying this. because right now a lot of that

fly ash, the stuff that's been taken out of the t.v.a. where those power plants ran over it, have been taken to alabama, put in the ground in other sites and they're trying to make a rule that make it a toxic material. the concrete industry thought they had it all settled until the e.p.a. came back and said, you know what? i wonder if you recycled that concrete. because right now everything is being recycled. i mean, we recycle asphalt we recycle concrete, we even recycle dirt. we clean the dirt. and so they said, if you recycle this concrete then it's going to put the fly ash back in the air. so what are you going to do with it? i mean, are you going to just bury it all now and put it in the ground or are you going to use it in concrete and if you recycle it you're actually putting it to better use because you're putting it back in concrete. and so this is just, you know, another part of those stupid

regulations and i come from the construction business and i know that we as the new majority that comes in in january are going to do everything we can to create jobs and we're going to work hard at it but until we get the construction industry back on its feet this economy is going to be very slow to turn around. we have got to put the building industry back on its feet and doing things that the e.p.a. is doing right now and not only the personality a. -- e.p.a. but the department of the new osha rules that are coming out. there's just all different types of things that are slowing down that building industry, slowing down our productivity that we have and until that gets fixed this economy's not going to recover like it can. and so i just hope that we can get something done about this, where these rules and regs have to come back in front of us. let us have hearings on them. at least let us give them an idea of what the leg legislate

-- legislative intent was and allow us to look at what these are and to vote on them because if we're going to get blamed for it like you said, we might as well, you know, at least have a vote on it. but when the. p.a. itself -- but when the e.p.a. itself says that these regulations could cost the cement industry $340 million a year and decrease the production in this country by 10%, in 2007, i guess it was, or whenever we had katrina, we had a short and of concrete. we had a shortage of cement. and we actually -- we couldn't import, it was a large import fee on it, we reduced that and started importing cement from mexico. just to make up for the difference because we had a shortage. and now if they continue with the regulations they're continuing with, if five years we wouldn't have any more domestic cement. it would all be coming from foreign countries. and what does that do?

they produce it without the same environmental regulations that we have. so the e.p.a. is just defeating its purpose of trying to clean the air up, if we're having to import all of our cement. and the gentleman from texas knows we put our steel mills out of business, it cost thousands and thousands of jobs and money and if we put ourself out of business in the cement industry, you know, we're going to be totally reliant on our steel and our cement, two of the biggest components that we use in the construction that involve our facilities today. mr. carter: reclaiming a moment of my time. that's part of what you just described, part of the american frustration factor. that's part of what's got americans frustrated in this economy right now. and it's not -- it's the unknown, it's the what is the government going to do to me next that's out there that has

businessmen, job creators standing around, scratching their head. i want to tell you a story from my youth. i was working the legislative council and then i left that job, i got hired as the attorney for the ad -- ag committee of the texas house of representatives. i'll make this short. it's a great story. the federal government had passed a new meat cutting law and it was going to affect all these mom and pop sausage makers all over the state of texas and at that time we had literally thousands of them. we were having hearings from these people complaining about what these new regular laces were doing to them. here comes two people from the department of constructions with a guy in a prison uniform and they put him on the stand in the ag committee and said, what are you here to testify about? he said, me and my brother had the best sausage maker in east texas. we were the best. and this fellow comes in our door one day and says, i'm from the federal government, i got

some new regulations, you're going to have to tear out all your equipment and buy new equipment. he said, we went to the banker and we borrowed $25,000 because he said we made the best sausage in east texas and we put it all in. six months late that are same fella came to our door and said, we got new regulations, you got to have a drain in the cement floor and you got to have all stainless steel, so all that stuff's got to go. he said, me and my brother, we went down and borrowed another $50,000 to the bank and we did all. that about a year late that are same fella walked in the door and said, i got bad news for you. so i shot the guy. and now i'm inrison for attempted manslaughter. that's a true story. >> now -- mr. westmoreland: now he's making sausage in the state of texas. mr. carter: that's how frustrating regulations can be. i yield to my friend. mr. davis: there's so many stories that we can think of and it comes back to this issue of