this floor is the wrong place to do it. we need to do it in reverse order. we need to go -- i know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. we are going to send it to the committees, we are going to let there be hearings about t. we are going to let the -- about it. we are going to let the democrats and republicans have an opportunity, for instance, the gentleman, mr. collin peterson, the former chairman of the ag committee, will have an opportunity to call those people who he believes -- mr. andrews: will the gentleman further yield? mr. sessions: i will in a second. mr. peterson will have an opportunity in working with mr. lucas, the chairman of the ag committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts. i don't think we have enough intellectual content because we are not -- we don't spend times on farms. i don't, to where i can make an accurate decision. if i review the transcript and listen to whaps in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to

realisically understand, study, talk about, and receive feed w.a.c. mr. andrews: would the gentleman further yield? mr. sessions: i would yield. mr. andrews: the gentleman makes a very good point about hearings before legislation takes place. how many hearings have there been on the renewal of the patriot act? mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman. reclaiming my time. . mr. andrews: you've got time. mr. sessions: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker, i do appreciate the gentleman, this house of representatives after 9/11 debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the patriot act but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. there's a requirement that these be looked at and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this. mr. speaker, i do appreciate the

gentleman engaging me. i would also make my point that the economic impact of the regulation of dust that will have on farmers, that will have on people who live in rural areas is enormous and this is part of that overall cost, not a hidden cost, it's a real cost, that makes us unproductive and costs consumers a lot of money. this is the kind of discussion we're going to have. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides the remaining amount of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 17 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has nine minutes remaining. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule, it will bring up h.r. 11, the bill -- build america bonds to create jobs now act. to explain that further and to as she so desires, i'm pleased

to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentlewoman from california, the minority leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in calling up h.r. 11, the bill build america bonds later. -- bonds, later. mr. speaker, it's very interesting to watch this debate because what you see here is that we're talking about jobs. the american people want us to create jobs now. and what you see on the floor of the house now today and tomorrow is a make work project. the republicans have no job initiatives so they need to fill time and they're filling time with a resolution that we all recognize the committees have the jurisdiction to do and some of the committees already have. we should subject every dollar, every initiative to the harshest

scrutiny to make sure it fills its purpose. that we bring common sense to what we are doing. but we don't need to spend 10 hours of the floor on the floor of the house because we have no job proposal on the side of the republicans and make it look as if this is a job creation bill. this is a make work product for republicans who are without an agenda for job creation. however we hope they will join us in renewing the build america bonds, to build america, to create jobs now. in every district nationwide, our constituents, many of them struggling without a paycheck, tell the same story. they're waiting for us to create jobs, to focus on jobs and economic growth before we do anything else. today i rise to echo their call, to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of america's families and put people back to work.

in the state -- in his state of the union address, president obama encouraged us to do what it takes to out innovate, out education and out build the rest of the world -- out-innovate, out-education and out-build the rest of the world from day one president obama has been a job creator. we had to dig our way out of a deep recession, but nonetheless, the recovery act created or saved over three million jobs and other initiatives like clash for clunkers and other initiatives that this congress took working with president obama spared us an even worse unemployment rate. now, that isn't good enough if you don't have a job and it isn't good enough for white house are responsible for creating them. and that is why the effort that the president started at the beginning of the administration, reiterated in his state of the union address, starts with creating more jobs here at home

and in this congress there should be no higher priority. yet the republican leadership has not met that challenge. since taking charge of the house more than one month ago they have yet to propose a single jobs bill. they have yet to unveil a concrete plan and americans are still waiting. this week is no different. instead of focusing on job creation, this congress is spending 10 hours on the floor, a filler, as concrete evidence of the fact that they have nothing else to fill the time with, directing our committees to conduct oversights. a very appropriate instruction. the committees are already doing that. these committees don't need a partisan resolution in order to start their work. and this house does not need a long floor debate that only diverts us from our purpose which is to create jobs. instead we should focus on

investments that work, that create jobs, that build america and grow our economy and that is why we are proudly putting forth the build america bonds to create jobs now act. this legislation would leverage public dollars, probably 40-1, for every public dollar spent, $40 of investment, to strengthen the private sector, spur job creation at home by supporting projects to rebuild schools, transit. last week we had a hearing on this subject following the president's state of the union address and his pronouncements about innovation, education, infrastructure, etc. we had a hearing on infrastructure and switched the build america bonds directly relaid. the representative society of civil engineers told us that our country has trillions of dollars of deficits, that our roads and bridges get d's and c-minuses in terms of their safety and

effectiveness. in addition, our water projects, some of them are ancient, made of brick and wood. and that's a health problem. and in terms of innovation for the future, our investments in infrastructure such as broadband is also essential to the growth and creation of jobs in our country. and so there's every reason for us to do this in the best of times. but we're not in the best of times. and so in this not good time as far as jobs are concerned, it's absolutely essential that we make a decision as a nation to put forth the greatest social initiative ever, job creation. the initiative to build america bonds and leverage dollars for encouraging the private sector has the support of mayors, governors and local businesses. it is good for taxpayers, using federal investments to unleash billions from private businesses in our neighborhoods.

that's why governor martin o'malley came to testify for this and another of pennsylvania, giving us their direct experience on what a difference the build america bond initiative, which was in the recovery act and which needs to be renewed. most significantly build america bonds keeps our promise to stay focused on jobs and it helps put americans back to work. both parties agree that we must stay focused on reducing our deficit and that's exactly what build america bonds do. you cannot achieve the goal of deficit reduction unless you invest in growth and job creation. a vigious oversight is critical to that effort and democrats remain committed to doing our part. we are ready to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, in our budget and we will subject every dollar, taxpayer dollar, to the harshest scrutiny and

we're prepared to make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order. but we will not sacrifice key investments that are helping our economy grow, our small businesses expand and reneed to make more investments in small business -- and we need to make more investments in small business, not less, and help workers find jobs. we've said from the beginning in this congress, democrats will measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengths the middle class and reduces the -- strengthens the middle class and reduces the deficit. the resolution before us today does none of the above. i think it's interesting just to make a contrast between the first month of this republican majority and our first days here in the congress. most of what we proposed as the law of the land, some of it signed by president bush in a bipartisan way. h.r. 1, enact the 9/11 commission rel age -- recommendations. this is 2007.

the 9/11 commission recommendations had not been enacted by the republican congress. we know our first responsibility is to keep the american people safe. h.r. 1, now the law of the land. raise the minimum wage, economic fairness. it had not been raised in over a decade. we raised the minimum wage and it became the law. making college more affordable, which is now the law of the land. we also had the energy independence act as part of our thing, much of which was signed into law by president bush. at the end of that congress. and his term. a couple initiatives did not become law. one of them was to remove the subsidies we give to big oil, to give them an incentive to drill, big oil which has made a trillion dollars in profits over the last 10 years does not need

billions of dollars in taxpayer money to have an incentive to drill for oil. and so on this side, h.r. 1, instead of enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations, lowering the minimum wage, making us more energy independent, making college more affordable, h.r. 1 repeals the health care bill. no prospect of success in doing that, no hearings leading up to it. but nonetheless a filler for the floor, red meat for those -- for the health insurance industry which opposes giving leverage to america's patients and consumers by saying that they will not be deterred from having coverage because they have a pre-existing medical condition or keeping kids on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old. that's what they wanted to repeal. again, red meat for the industry, for the special interests, no jobs for the american people. in the weeks ahead we must renew

our focus on job creation. let's vote on bills that grow our economy through innovation, public-private partnership and tackle unemployment head-on. together we can help america's -- america create jobs, rebuilding america in a very green way, and the technologies we'll develop will make us, keep us, number one. investing in transportation, in manufacturing, in clean energy and new technologies, in industries and in small businesses. as my colleague, mr. hoyer, reminds us every minute, if we make it in america, america's families can make it in america. let's set our path on doing that instead of frivolously using 10 hours that are unnecessary but they're for only one purpose, you have nothing else to offer. today we can keep our recovery on track and put americans to

work. i urge our colleagues to vote no on this resolution. not that we don't think we should subject regulation to scrutiny, but because we think we shouldn't waste the public's time on this when it's already being done in committee and we should be having a debate, a lively debate, on what the best approach is to create jobs, spur the economy, reduce the deficit and strengthen the middle class. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i recognize the time differential here that i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlewoman from california, my friend, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for dwo minutes. ms. sanchez: i thank my colleague from florida and, mr.

speaker, i urge my republican colleagues to focus their priorities on saving and creating jobs. instead of spending 10 hours debating what congress already has the power to do, we already have the power of oversight over the federal agencies. and if 10 hours were not enough to debate this, imagine the 54 hearings that are already scheduled by the republicans to focus on redebating the health care reform. americans remember we debated that for almost two years. but they took the vote on getting rid of health care reform before doing the 54 hearings. listen, we do oversight, actually, a ledge lative and authorizing committee, like the ones i sit on, be it homeland security or the armed services committee, we have the power to to that. and the republicans hold the

chairmanship. the chairman gets to decide what the committee does. just tell your chairmen, let's do oversight. it's really straightforward. we don't have to spend 10 hours on c-span telling the american people, oh, my gosh, we've got to pass a resolution telling the committees to do oversight. we already have that. we're already doing that. we've already got subcommittees on armed services committee, we have an oversight committee. i hope your chairmen know what they're doing. they don't need a resolution telling them to do their job. or do they? we need jobs. americans want jobs. that's what we want. when i go home, we want jobs. build it in america. the build america bonds. i am a co-sponsor of that. mr. hastings, i'm so glad you're going to bring that up. let's pass that. for every dollar that we spend

in that program, $40 at the local, state, and private level is used toward that. thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: thank you very much, i continue to reserve hi -- -- >> thank you very much, i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. hastings: i recognize the yom from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the yom is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank my good friend for managing this time. i know there's a great opportunity to be redundant sometimes and i would imagine that any american would consider nine hours of debating the authority of oversight which is bested in all of our committees might be redundant. but let me share a few points of

opportunity. first of all, in the homeland curt, having served as chairwoman of the transportation security committee, we introduced h reform 2200, -- introduced h.r. 2200, which would heighten the security for the nation's mass transit. jobs being created, of course, but also securing the homeland. the idea of increasing the professionalism of t.s.a. or t.s.o. officers. again, providing enhanced training for jobs but also in essence protecting the homeland. these are quick and ready issues that could be addressed in the time allotted for debating redundancy. let me also congratulate my good friends on the infrastructure bank because infrastructure creates jobs. the high speed rail our president is announcing, hearings to be able to assess on how we can move quickly on high

speed rail to create jobs or as one of my colleagues and myself mentioned, a number of our airlines are using overseas airline repair stations. bring those back to the united states with -- would create and provide more jobs, again, an action item that could be done through this congress creating jobs. so my question is, when will we get to the discussion of how do we rebuild america? when do we get to answering the questions of why in some cities huge sink holes exist where trucks, buses and cars fall into sink holes. when will we fix the flooding that goes on in this country to avoid natural disaster in mr. speaker, let me thank you for this time but i'm ready to go to work in creating jobs for america and i look forward to my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: could i ask how many speakers the gentleman has and how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 11 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from texas has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: we are waiting on one speaker. do you have additional speakers? mr. sessions: i do have one additional speaker. mr. hastings: and then you'll be prepared to close? mr. sessions: we'll be prepared to close. mr. hastings: then i will do this. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, what i want to say to you is that continually we need to make the point that this bill is all about referring to committees. the opportunity for them to look at onerous rules and regulations. i'd like to bring up just one

more of a burdensome regulation. milk contains animal fat and the e.p.a. has suggested that milk storage could be regulated urn the clean water act as large oil tanks. it is estimated that it would cost u.s. dairy farmers thousands of dollars to come into compliance that would be the exact same as large oil tanks. the e.p.a., only after congressional pressure, has signaled that it would finalize an exemption for milk. however, it has yet to do so and continues to drag its feet, meanwhile, farmers are having to face what is a burdensome regulation. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: my speaker did not arrive, i'm prepared to close. i yield myself the remaining amount of time. the speaker pro tempore: the quelt is recognized. mr. hastings: when i listen to my friends i work with, and they

are my friends -- i didn't know that the chairman was getting ready to speak. i was going to go ahead and close. mr. sessions: i did not know if you had your ore speaker here. i did indicate i have an additional speaker left in addition to myself. mr. hastings: then i wru my time. mr. sessions: i'm sorry your speaker has not arrived. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes, without objection. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. it is true that this is all about creating jobs. job creation and economic growth is our number one priority. i have been listening to this debate over the last few minutes and have come to a really striking conclusion. my colleagues on the other side

of the aisle seem to believe that democrats believe that the government creates jobs and we believe that the american people create jobs and our goal is to get out of the way so that in fact that can happen. we want the government to get out of the way so that that can happen. my friend from santa ana earlier was talking about the fact that this institution has the ability to proceed with oversight to deal with onerous regulations. everyone seems to acknowledge that the regulations are great. but the fact of the matter is, in 2009, the obama administration propounded 59 major new regulations, in 200, it was 61. urn the permanent bailout bill it's projected that there will be 218 new regulations dealing with 11 agencies that will be impinging on the ability for economic growth. we know that the average cost

per employee for small businesses, businesses with 20 or fewer employees, is $10,585. that's the average per employee cost for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. that's a study that came out last september from lafayette university. it's obvious that we have been talking about this regulatory burden undermining the potential for job creation and economic growth. so this is all about creating jobs contrary to what so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are making. we had in our pledge, we said we are going to rein in the red tape, that's the priority we made last summer, and i'm gratified to see that the president has followed through with his executive order to try to deal with the regulatory burden. we know in the "wall street journal," he penned a very

important piece in which he recognized that this regulatory burden is very great and needs to be reduced and of course we saw the president's speech before the united states chamber of commerce in which he talked about the problems of regulation and his priority of ensuring that we do that. why is it we have this resolution? let me say that i greatly appreciate the fact that my good friend, the vice chairman of the rule committees from dallas, mr. sessions, has authored this important resolution. why? because we believe that this institution, with the strength of a strong, bold, bipartisan vote, saying to committees that we understand that when off $10,585 per employee cost for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees due to regulations that we need to have a laser-like approach on dealing with that regulatory burden. that's why we're here. that's why we're doing this. we leave the signal that this

resolution will send, mr. speaker, will go a long way toward letting the american people know, the marketplace know, that we are going to be committed in a bipartisan way to get input from both democrats and republicans to try to rein in this regulatory burden that exists and undermines the potential for job creation and economic growth. so i think that we'll have a strong, bipartisan vote on the measure and i urge my colleagues to vote for it and i say that i look forward, as i have upstairs in the rules committee, continuing my effort to reach out to democrats, work with them on thoughtful proposals they have because there are good ideas that come from both sides and i believe that as we tackle the issue of reag la -- regulatory reform that both sides will be able to participate. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i will yield myself the remaining amount of time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, in the rules committee, the chairman and two other members cited repeatedly the january 18 article authored by president obama that appeared in "the wall street journal." interestingly, they leave out one section of what the president did in fact say. they do say, and i agree, that he said in the article, sometimes those rules have gotten out of balance. placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on deprothe in jobs. that's where they stop. but the president in that article goes on. at other times we failed to meet our basic responsibility, to protect the public interest

leading to disastrous consequences. if you recall, mr. speaker, earlier, i began by saying what a lack of regulation caused at the securities and exchange commission. the president and "the wall street journal" -- in the "wall street journal" article says, such was the case in the rupp up to the qunsrble crisis from which we are still recovering. there's proper oversight and transparency. now that began before barack obama was president of the united states. most of us, especially those of us on the floor that are senior members were here in november when secretary paulson came here and cited with 3 1/2 pages in his hands that the whole financial system was about to collapse. i along with countless others

thought that that was the case and we worked in a bipartisan fashion, i might add to do what we could to shore it up. over the past two year the president said the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. and today, i'm signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government. what else do we need? here's what we did. one month ago, just one month ago, we approved the rules under which committees must, and i repeat, one lay out a written plan for overseeing federal regulations and two, conduct the oversight through hearings and investigations and provide the american people a written report on the results of that oversight twice a year. the rules even specifically tell committees to review, i'm quoting from the rules that we passed for the house of representatives, for the 112th

congress, they tell the committees to review specific problems with federal rules, regulations, statutes and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary or nonsense call or that impose -- nonsensical, or that impose undue burdens. i find it passing strange then that we come here today and say we're doing something constructive and substantive for the membership. my friend mr. sessions said earlier that we're going to give every member of the house of representatives who so chooses during that 1/2 hours an opportunity to speak out on the regulations and to have what they would offer to the committees for regulation oversight, but what he fails to say is that we are proceeding under a closed rule. now it isn't that the american

people always understands this washington inside baseball closed rule, open rule, modified rule, all of the -- he was going to fix it, he said by offering the democrats a motion to recommit as if that would then provide all the substantive input that member could. one of the reasons we have a rules committee is so that members of the house of representatives can come to the rules committee to offer amendments to proposals. the proposal that we are here on today is regulatory reform. not one amendment was permitted nor will be permitted under this rule. you can come down here and talk all we want, but it won't change anything substantively about this rule. as i've indicated, democrats are not opposed to conducting proper oversight, if there's excessive regulations which are clearly of no benefit to the american people then we ought to take a hard look at how best to eliminate them.

mr. speaker, if i have the time and if the rules will permit, the gentleman that i spoke of that would speak has arrived and i would like very much to yield to him if the rules permit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may yield. mr. hastings: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for what amount of time? mr. hastings: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my good friend from florida. we were at a virginia delegation meeting and it went over just a little bit, i'm sorry. mr. speaker, we're more than five weeks into this congress. the majority has yet to bring to the floor even a single bill aimed at job creation. yesterday i asked, where is the job creation agenda? because the american people have said loud and clear, job creation should be our top priority in the -- and the republicans have pledged a laze hrn like focus on the issue -- laser-like focus on the issue. today they're having 10 hours of debate on committees. let me offer an alternative. today i introduced h.r. 11,

legislation to extend the successful build america bonds program, a jobs bill. during the last two years, $4.4 billion from the recovery act leveraged $181 billion in new bonds at state and local levels. $181 billion is needed in school construction and bridge and road repairs. $181 billion in job creation. my own state of virginia issued $3.3 billion of those bonds in 45 distinct projects and nationwide hundreds of thousands of jobs were created. we can create hundreds and thousands more if we extend this program. so i ask my colleagues, if you're serious about job creation, support h.r. 11. i thank my colleague from florida and yield back to him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, with all due respect to mr. sessions, as a matter of comedy, -- comity, it was pointed out to me that i could have asked him, i was given that the speaker gave the direction did you and

therefore i apologize to pete for that. but democrats now stand for the wholesale undertaking of what's necessary to provide essential public safety measures and crucial economic benefits. we will not stand for republicans eliminating rules that prevent polluters from dumping toxic waste into drinking water resources. we will not stand for republicans eliminating rules that prevent wall street greed from forcing people out of their homes and democrats will not stand for republicans eliminating rules which ensure that americas -- americans can purchase food at the grocery store without worrying about getting life-threatening illnesses. while we won't object to republicans wanting to debate the efficiency of federal regulations, we do object to spending 9 1/2 hours debating what everyone has already agreed to. house committees already are

required to conduct oversight. they already examine federal regulations and they already promulgate regulation making changes to federal laws. wasting thised abouty's time debating this matter only serves to underscore that republicans still have no plan for improving the economy and no interest, it does appear in prioritizing legislation that will create jobs and best serve the american people. in the 9 1/2 hours this body will debate today and tomorrow this entirely unnecessary, inconsequentialal resolution, not a single regulation will be improved. not a single law will be changed and not a single job will be created. the american people watching know that this is simply a waste of time. they know it is nothing but empty rhetoric and they know that a 9 1/2-hour ideological rant is no replacement for the

job-creating measures our nation so desperately needs. if we defeat the previous question, mr. speaker, as i announced earlier, i will offer an amendment to the rule, to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 11, the build america bonds to create jobs now act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, big government's still alive and well on the floor today. big government going to spend the people's money from back home, spending, spending, spending. all about the government. well, that's why the republican party is the majority party on the floor of the house of representatives now. because the american people saw the effects of huge government, bigger government, and rules and regulations. mr. speaker, you heard me earlier say that my republican colleagues and i are committed to putting americans back to

work. we believe that what happens in washington can aid and help the free enterprise system. by telling a story, putting a spotlight, showing the light of day on the rules and regulations that are costing business over a trillion dollars a year which takes resources away from the activities that they would have of job creation and keeping our job growth innovation and our economy stable. while small businesses are getting hit harder than any other firms in the united states, now is the time to provide that relief to these businesses so that they can reinvest in themselves, create jobs and level out the economy. this republican congress remains committed to scaling back some of the 43 major regulations imposed in the last year by the obama administration that would add $28 billion annually. mr. speaker, it's obvious to me

that we must do better. i would that the time yield back the balance of my time and i would move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. favor favor -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 86 rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 8, house resolution 79, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 514, to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriotimprovement and reauthorization act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of

2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except -- one, one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence; and, two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from boulder, and pending which i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, 18 days from now three key provisions of the patriot act are set to expire, leaving a gap in our

national security framework. today's underlying legislation would temporarily, and i underscore the word, mr. speaker, temporarily extend these provisions to allow for the development of a long-term solution with the many questions that are out there. now, mr. speaker, with strong bipartisan support, the previous congress simply passed a blanket one-year extension without addressing any of the underlying challenges, questions and controversies. and, mr. speaker, i'm the first to admit that there are challenges, questions and controversies that relate to the patriot act. unfortunately, and again it was by a vote of 315-97, february 25 of last year, mr. speaker, and we went to that entire yew, -- through that entire year, but guess what? not a single hearing was conducted subsequent to the passage of that extension. not a single hearing over the

past year has been held. now, i feel very confident that my colleagues who have joined me on the floor here from the judiciary committee, mr. lungren who is here right now, mr. sensenbrenner who chair the subprime committee, mr. gohmert, i mean, these gentlemen and i have just had a conversation, mr. speaker, in which they have made an absolute commitment that this congress will not make the mistake that was made over the past year. following this short-term extension, we will have a thorough oversight process in which the committees of jurisdiction take a very close look at how we pursue the terrorists who threaten our homeland. now, everyone acknowledges that this is not only controversial, not only filled with questions and not only filled with challenges, but it is very, very complicated. the individuals and networks who seek to do harm to americans

change and adapt every single day and mr. lungren and i were just vag conversation in which we were looking at the situation as it existed a decade agoing, right after september 11, and the threat is much different today than it was 10 years ago. and that's why we need to recognize that they are constantly changing and adapting their tactics to try and undo the united states of america and the free world. staying one step ahead requires a tremendous amount of flexibility, ingenuity and coordination. and of course the right law enforcement tools. just today the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, said that the threat that exists today, and mr. gohmert just showed it to me on his ipad, it's on the front of one of the newspapers around here, the threat that exists today is as great as it's been since september 11, and then

when i said it to mr. lungren, he reminded me that it's a different threat. a different threat today than the one we faced in the past. and that's why flexibility, ingenuity and coordination are absolutely essential if we are going to proceed. ensuring that we are taking all necessary steps while fully protecting the rights of all americans, and i want to underscore, this is one of the reasons that going back 10 years, as we were legislating through the prison much of september 11, i was -- prison am of september 11, i was very -- prism of september 11, i was making sure we were not undermining the rights of the american people. we need to ensure that that is a priority as we proceed. this process is going to be a lengthy process over the next 10 months and it's not a process that can be resolved in the seven legislative days that exists between now and february

28 when this is scheduled to expire. in the immediate term, it is imperative that we temporarily extend the expiring provisions to ensure that we do not suddenly create glaring loopholes in our national security. it is imperative that we commit to a comprehensive and, yes, transparent process, and i had a conversation with my california colleague, mr. rohrabacher, downstairs. we want to, all the way to when this measure comes to the floor, ensure that we have an open and transparent process when it comes to changes, modifications to the patriot act, and we want amendments to be considered, we want there to be a free-flowing debate as we proceed. now, mr. speaker, the last piece of legislation, the resolution that we were just discussing, has to do with job creation and economic growth because we want to unleash the potential of the

american worker by treeing them from the onerous regulations that have been imposed on them. and some might say, is this in fact a jobs bill? when i think about what happened to our nation's economy following september 11 of 2001. we all know the devastation that took place. the new york stock exchange had to close down for a week. we saw tremendous disruptions in our economy and the job force. this measure is designed to ensure our national security and without national security, we don't have the potential to save and create jobs in this country. so i see this measure as being critical to our quest for sustained, we're enjoying economic recovery today, for sustained job creation and economic growth and believe that they are so inex-trick pli tied that it is essential that we put this extension in place so over

the next 10 months, nothing will be done to undermine the security and safety of our fellow americans. the five most important words in the middle of the pri amble of the constitution are -- of the preamble of the constitution are "provide for the common defense." mr. lungren and i were talking about this yesterday morning at the republican conference, it is absolutely essential that we recognize that that is our number one priority. providing for the common defense ensures our economic security where the potential for job creation will be able to be sustained. i urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way, since we had a vote of 315-97 on february 25 of last year with, again, strong bipartisan support from many, many, many democrats who unfortunately chose to vote no when we had this under suspension of the rules, now we are considering it under a process. this is bipartisan, by the way. when a measure is not successful

under suspension of the rules, democrats an republicans alike bring measures to the floor under this process that we're considering this measure today. so i urge my colleagues to support this so that we can proceed with the very important work that mrs. sensenbrenner, lungren and others had been pursuing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the patriot act is a bill that's been plagued with abution since it first passed. today's rule is another example of short circuiting a system that our founding fathers set up. if there was ever the need for close supervision and congressional oversight of a law, it is a law that discusses how and under what conditions the government can spy on its own citizens. but yet after 10 years of public record, we all agree there are some clear sections of the law that can be improved. instead of debating these sections of the law to better

find that balance between protecting what makes it special to be american and protecting our national security, instead, republican leadership has decided to ram through this bill with as little debate as possible. mr. speaker, we spent an hour earlier discussing how we will spend 9 1/2 hours discussing the organizational aspects of the house committee structure and yet for something that cuts to our core identity as americans we only have an hour under the rule and an hour under the bill to discuss it in its entirety this bill would re-authorize three of the most troubling provisions in the patriot act. again, instead of debating the merits of the provisions and coming up with solutions that both sides can agree on to protect what it means to be an american, republican leadership has a tendency to force it through under a suspension and

now they propose it under a closed rule. on such an important issue, one that affects our national security, our civil liberties of every american, that goes right to the heart of what it means to be american and our identity in this great republic, the american -- the majority has reverted back. just yesterday, they held a vote open for more than half an hour pressuring members to switch votes. thankfully, the effort failed to switch the majority which is why we're here today with an additional hour to discuss the patriot act, weawowfully insufficient. ic member -- i think members can be grateful that we at least have this much.

the majority says they haven't had time to look at this, but they've had hearings on other topics. apparently the topic of abortion was important enough to have a discussion of the judiciary committee but the -- not the topic of the curt of the american people. why can't the judiciary committee find time to hold a hearing to discuss an issue this important that cuts to the very definition of what it means to be american. even if a little more time is needed, a month, two month, why sthrnt a 30-day extension or 60-day extension before us instead of a 10-month extension? it shouldn't be used as an excuse to prevent all proceedings from moving forward. mr. dreier: will you yield? mr. polis: i yield for a moment. mr. dreier: as i said work the controversies, the channel, and the absolute humongous task that

is faced, we know the legislative process takes a while and to have that 10-month extension is essential for the work. mr. polis: i think there would be broader agreement if there was perhaps a 60-day extension and maybe another 60-day extension but putting it off 10 months or a year can give an excuse not to bring to the forefront these rules that need to be dealt with. there's already been the single most significant bill was h.r. 2, the repeal of an entire body of health care law. sometime -- somehow there was the ability to bring that to the floor within days of the opening of a new congress. both parties want to ensure that the government has the tools we need to fight terrorism. we can all agree that the patriot act has issues that need to be recovered. -- resolved. if we can move this bill through the regular order, i'm confident that the judiciary committee can make improvements they've

already discussed in prior sessions. last year, the judiciary committee reported out by voice vote measures that would imflive patriot act. it's clear there is bipartisan support to improve this bill. even as we speak, the senate is debating three different versions of the re-authorization bill. yet here in the house, we have only this one, originally scheduled with hardly any debate, and now with a very closed structure and no ability for members of either party to offer amendments. apart from its procedural flaw the re-authorization fails to provide the administration the tools and support it truly needs. the administration, which does support re-authorizing the patriot act, has asked for a real re-authorization rather than a short-term extension that increases the uncertainty around left arm planning, intelligence and law enforcement as they carry out this mission. instead of a patch to get us through another few months at

the expense of the civil liberties of the american people, we need the opportunity to work together to fix this bill. specifically this bill would re-authorize section 215, 206 and 6 001 of the reform and intelligence act. one section allows them to capture any relevant thing that may be relevant to an investigation, your medical records, your diary, even what books you checked out of the library and what websites you visited. in the past, these were limited to narrow classes of business and records but the specific facts pertaining any any agent of a foreign power swept away the basic requirements. it was reported by a bookstore that everybody, the information regarding everybody who purchased biographical books about osama bin laden had been requested. the justification used for this

provision is that the government needs to be the -- to have the ability to protect our national security yet this goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. we have a -- we should seriously consider making changes to this section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to spy on its citizens. let me give a few examples. i think this will come as some surprise to many people of the transgregs that have occurred, the affronts to our civil liberties as americans that have occurred rn the patriot act. perhaps some of us have taken christmas vacations to las vegas. well, there's a list of 300,000 people that visited las vegas in christmas of 2003 that according to an article in "the las vegas review journal" said the ka see yow operators turned over names and other guest information on an estimated 270,000 visitors. i think a lot of people don't expect that to happen when they

visit las vegas. there needs to be an oversight process in place to ensure that when extreme measures are necessary that interfere with our privacy it goes through the right chams. this particular incident, even the f.b.i. conceded that the personal records had not borne out a particular threat. the patriot act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search individuals' homes and 90% of those cases, 90%, have had nothing to do with terrorism. the patriot act was used against brandon may feel, a muslim american innocent of any crime to tap his phone, seize his property, copy his computer, files, spy on his children, all without his knowledge, mr. speaker. it's been used to coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about web surfing and internet activity and gagged that provider preventing them from saying their information had been compromised. it's been used to charge, detain

and prosecute a muslim student in idaho, providing website licks to materials that were fun objectionable by some even though those same links were available on a u.s. government website. mr. speaker, part of what makes america special is the balance between our civil liberties and rights as americans and our national security. when so many members of congress, so many americans, on both sides of the aisle, of all ideologies, feel that we can do better, i think we owe it to the people of this country to do better and have a better process as a congress, to improve the patriot act to help protect our liberties and keep us safe over the long-term. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say i agree with much of what my friend from bowler has said. i will say this, it was february 25 of last year that a one-year extension was provided and in the a single hearing held.

it was very important that we deal with these questions my friend raised and we have them as well. they need to be addressed. the administration has come out in strong support of this administration. they'd like to have the extension, not a 30 or 60 days, they'd like it to go to december of 203, if they had their way, that's what the statement of 1kwr5d mrgs policy says. mr. speaker, i believe that we are very much on the right track to ensure that we get those issues addressed. and now i'd like to yield four minutes to my friend from menomee falls, the chairman of the crime subcommittee, who will be explaining in great detail the challenges we face. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized fur four -- for four minutes. >> the information provided by my colleague from colorado doesn't mesh with the facts. first of all, i was chame of the

full judiciary committee on september 11. when the patriot act was introduced, we had two hearings and a full committee markup. mr. sensenbrenner: the senate didn't have that, even though it was controlled by the democrats and there were, you know, long negotiations to come up with the original patriot act the president signed. at that time, i insisted that there be a sunset provision on all of the 16 additional provisions of the patriot act that expanded law enforcement powers and i gave the commitment that as chairman of the committee, i would hold hearings on each of these 16 provisions, subsequently increased to 17, before the sunset expired. and i did. and at that time, the testimony was very clear that there was no controversy over making permanent 14 of the 16

provisions. and the patriot act extension did that. the three provisions not made permanent were the ones that were in controversy. and most of the complaints advanced by my friend from colorado, mr. polis, were on the 14 provisions that there were no abuses that were brought out during the 2005 hearings. now let me talk about the three provisions that do expire, that are the subject of the underlying bill. first of all, section 206, the roving wiretap authority, law enforcement has had this authority on organized crime and drug pushing since 1986. the patriot act expanded it to include terrorism. there has been no constitutional challenge that has been filed against section 206. section 6001, the 17th provision and the lone wolf provision,

says that someone who can be investigated urn the patriot act doesn't have to be a member of an identifyable group like al qaeda in order for the patriot act's provisions to come into play. constitutionality of that is unchallenged. now section 215, which is the business records provision, there was a constitutional challenge and it was withdrawn. the challenge was in the case of muslim community associations -- association versus ashcroft filed in the eastern district of michigan. the plaintiff in the case alleged that section 215 violated the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution. . the 2005 re-authorization of the patriot act amended section 215 and as a result of the amendment, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint. we have solved those problems.

so much of what we hear today are about issues that were made permanent because there really wasn't an issue or something that involves other type of law enforcement activity other than the patriot act. this congress, i am the chairman of the subcommittee on crime, and we will have those hearings before this extension expires on december 8. and we will give everybody a chance to thoroughly air their complaints just like i promised and just like i delivered in 2005. and when the record is brought up to date, i hope that the members will confine their debate to what is actually in the expiring provisions of the patriot act rather than talking about a lot of other things, some of which don't even involve the patriot act whatsoever. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the historical account that was just delivered by my colleague on the judiciary committee, former chairman sensenbrenner, and i have abundant respect and admiration for him and his motives and his desire to protect the civil rights that we all hold dear. but i find it disturbing that today we are going to start out on a 9 1/2 hour debate on a meaningless, redundant measure that simply instructs congress

and its committees to review regulations and we could be spending that time dealing with such a very important serious issue such as re-authorization of this so-called patriot act. this bill is too serious, it's too important to be re-authorized without any hearings, no markups, who opportunity for amendments. i was glad to be one of the true patriots to vote against this measure when it was brought to the floor yesterday on a suspension of the rules. without due consideration by our judiciary committee. there's a bipartisan consensus that these provisions need some improvement.

roving wiretaps, the lone wolf provisions, especially business records. while the threat of terrorism is real and law enforcement must have the right to protect americans, any counterterrorism measure must have a solid constitutional fitting and respect for the privacy and the civil liberties of the american people. if congress re-authorizes these provisions with no changes, americans will remain subject to warrantless intrusions into their personal affairs and a gross overreach of federal investigative authority that could be and has been abused. it's just not how we do things in this country, ladies and gentlemen. rather than taking the time to craft reforms that will better

protect private sit zens' communications and privacy from overbroad government surveillance, the republican party simply wants to ram this bill through without providing any opportunity for anybody to offer amendments that would improve the bill. we all acknowledge that law enforcement needs new tools to keep up with 21st century threats. but surely it's our responsibility in congress -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. but surely it's our responsibility in congress to re-examine legislation that was hurried through congress in the wake of 9/11, to make sure it lives up to our national ideals because this bill, this bill fails to contain any checks and balances to protect law enforcement abuses and protect civil be liberties -- civil liberties. i oppose the rule and underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend from georgia that no one is trying to ram anything through at this point. i would say to my friend that president obama strongly supports this extension, i would say to my friend. president obama strongly supports this extension. he in fact wants it to go to december of 2013. we had a one-year extension put put in place by a vote of 319-27 on february 25 of 2010, there was a commitment then, certainly people inferred, we would have hearings. there was not a single hearing held during that entire period of time and we have made an absolute commitment, we just heard from mr. sensenbrenner, we are about to hear from mr. lungren the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee, that we are going to -- mr. johnson: would the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: i yield right now to the gentleman from gold river, five minutes. i would love to engage in a colloquy if mr. polis would

yield time on this issue. five minutes to my friend from gold river, the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much , mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee, for granting me this time. the author of the sunset provision that requires us to these three portions of the patriot act. i offered that when we had the re-authorization of the overall bill because i thought these were three sections that were, at that time, controversial, and that we ought to be required to review it. so i did support the authorization for a year that we had last year, but i fully expected that the judiciary committee would hold hearings so that before this date we would have acted on any changes anyone

deemed necessary. i would say i am not aware of any changes that are necessary, and i have followed this ever since they put the sunset provisions in. nonetheless, i had thought that during the last year while my friends on the other side were in charge, as a matter of fact i believe our committee passed out a full re-authorization of the patriot act, that is the judiciary committee, under the leadership of chairman conyers, but it was never brought to the floor for us to consider. under any rule. open or closed. so what we are asking for in concert with the president of the united states is to extend it to the end of this year so that we can carry out the actually mandated obligation of oversight. chairman sensenbrenner, chairman of the crime subcommittee, has a track record. i believe it was 13 hearings that we held on these subjects.

we went through chapter and verse, we had the f.b.i. before us, we had the attorney general before us, we had the criminal division before us. we had the aclu before us. we had classified briefings as well as public hearings. we made some changes in 2005. pursuant to requests and information that was presented to us. now, i know some of our members said after they voted against this -- on this suspension calendar this bill has been in effect for 10 years, times have changed. yes, they have. and if we examine the changes we would see these three provisions are more necessary today than they were when first put into law. why? because as secretary napolitano, the secretary in the obama administration, stated just today we are on as high alert today as far as she's concerned in terms of the threat as we have been at any time since

9/11. and as the two co-chairs of the 9/11 commission said in testimony last year, which is basically repeated by secretary napolitano, and the head of the nctc in testimony this week, we have a different threat today. we have the continuing threat of those of al qaeda on the international scene still attempting to probe and find where they might be able to provide a catastrophic event against the united states, but the new facts show that the greater threat to us today is as they have said, less consequential attacks from smaller groups, some not even officially allied with al qaeda, sometimes inspired by them, sometimes incited by them, and these three provisions go directly to the investigation that is are necessary for us to deter that. this is not the regular criminal justice system when you examine

the evidence after the crime has been committed to try and convict the individual. this is in the essence of deterrence to make sure that we are not collecting body parts after the attack has occurred. and as a result, we have tried to make changes in the law that will allow us to do what the 9/11 commission said we couldn't do beforehand. connect the dots. why do we have the lone wolf provision in here? because that is more and more the concern we have to have. now, this would not apply to major hassan because he is an american citizen. we are talking about lone wolf provisions for those who are not u.s. citizens. but he was a lone wolf if you want to understand what a lone wolf is. he wasn't officially connected with al qaeda or anybody else, but was in conversation, he was incited by our inspired by, and if anybody doesn't believe he committed a terrorist attack, they don't know what terrorism is. you talk about a lone wolf, about the guy who was on the airplane in christmas a little

over a year ago. that would be a lone wolf. we might have been able to collect information on him had we had an opportunity to get some of this information. i would be happy to yield. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we have the benefit of having my friend from gold river, my friend from anom any -- anomy falls on the floor if they would underscore the commitment that was raised by the gentleman from georgia that we would be diligently -- mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. dreier: i would like to inquire of both my friends what kind of commitment they are prepared to make in dealing with this. we have gone for an entire year following the 315-97 vote passage of this measure without a single hearing being held. first i yield to my friend, the chairman of the crime subcommittee.

mr. sensenbrenner: i thank my friend for yielding. i plan on doing with this re-authorization of the patriot act the same thing i did with the 2005 re-authorization of the patriot act. examine every one of the expiring provisions, let everybody speak their peace, and then let the house of representatives work its will. there have been no civil liberties violations on these three expiring provisions. they have all been upheld as constitutional or not challenged. and we did have a problem with business records and we solved that in 2005. so all of the fears that the gentleman from colorado is making, i think are a red herring. we did it when we were in the majority in the judiciary committee and unfortunately when the other side was in the majority, they didn't do it. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i would say to my friend i think it's very important to note that as those hearings proceed,

issues that relate to civil liberties will clearly be a part of the hearing process and debate, am i correct in concluding that? mr. sensenbrenner: you're right. i did it 5 1/2 years ago. i'll do it again. mr. dreier: i appreciate that. how much time do i have remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. mr. dreier: i yield 45 seconds. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. lungren: the reason i came to the house of representatives was in response to 9/11 to try and make sure we had the tools necessary to protect this country from these kinds of attacks and at the same time as someone who devoted his entire life to enforcing the law, but with the protection of civil liberties, to make sure that is done in this case as well. one last thing about the roving wiretap, it is not controversial. it's been used in domestic criminal cases since at least 1980. and all it does is respond to new technology. you have a wiretap that now grants authority, once proven,

grants authority to follow the person with whatever device it uses because, guess what? most people are not confined to a single l.a.n. line today. that is all -- that's all this does. would you think we would have the same provisions we use against criminals we could use those against those who would want to destroy americans in america. terrorists. mr. dreier: i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. in response to my friend on the roving wiretap issue, it's fast mate nating. as i began -- it's fascinating. as i began my remarks, mr. gohmert showed me the ipad which had the headline that the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, has indicate the threat that exists today is greater than it's been at any time since september 11 of 2001. that technology didn't exist back if 2001 or certainly back in 1980, the roving wiretap was designed to focus on the potential terrorist and not on

some antiquated technology we have. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the gentleman from wisconsin mentioned that he's not aware of abuses under section 215. i would remind my colleagues that most of the uses are classified under 215 and there's not been a briefing for members of congress this congress to determine if there's been abuses. i have not had a briefing, nor has one been offered to the members of the 112th congress. i think before we make a decision about section 215, we need to know how it's been used. that's a simple request. with that, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: i request

unanimous consent to insert into the record -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: two news articles, one from "the new york times," march 13, 2008, "f.b.i. made plan debt demands for phone records" and one from january 11, 2011, twitter signs -- shines a spotlight on f.b.i. credit subpoenas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i'd like to get back to first principles here. first amendment. congress shall make no law respecting the establish almost -- establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people to peaceably to assemble and adress the government for redress of depree advances. this patriot act is a wholesale abandonment of the right to assemble peaceably. this patriot act is a square

violation of the fourth amendment, the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures. now, i can trust my friends on the other side of the aisle, they're decent people. this isn't about democrat versus republican. it's not about a democratic president, not -- if there was a republican president or we'll have one in the future, it's about something actually much more important than all of us and than whoever might be an executive. it's about the constitution of the united states. congress made a mistake. when it passed the patriot act. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. kucinich: i'm going to continue and then yield. congress made a mistake when it passed the patriot act.

instead of sunsetting it and being done with it, we kept it going. this law today we seek to re-authorize certain sections of the patriot act. what i maintain is we have a destructive undermining of constitutional principles. we can't say, let's trust our friends to do the right thing. it's beyond friendship, beyond party, beyond who's the president. i disagree with president obama on this. it's interesting, at this very moment that our president is on television celebrating the tremendous movement toward the free world of the people of egypt who have suffered real repression and suppression of their basic liberties, ewith can celebrate something happening -- we can celebrate something happening thousands of miles away. it would be much better for america if we celebrated our

constitution. what we have done with the patriot act, we've given the government enormous powers. we've given the government to reach deeply into people's private lives, into their business affairs, without a court order. we need to think about that. some people say they don't want government involved in certain things. government is involved in a way that is devastating when you come to the devastation of constitutional principles, you give the f.b.i. the ability to reach into people's private lives without a court order. i'm telling you, whether you're democrat or republican, this is a very dangerous thing we're doing here. stand up for the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i yield my friend 30 seconds, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. sensenbrenner: the patriot act has been the law for over nine years. not one of those 17 sections

have been declared unconstitutional by any court in the united states. the argument that has been advanced by the gentleman from ohio is just plain wrong. there has been plenty of opportunity to sue and to get parts of the patriot act declared unconstitutional. most of these provisions haven't been challenged. so let's stick to the facts. rather than making up arguments that simply do not exist with the patriot act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has nine and one quarter minutes and the gentleman from colorado has 13 and a half minutes remaining. mr. dreier: i'll reserve the balance of my time so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can exhaust some of their time and then -- actually, i'm going to ask my friend how many speakers he has remaining?

mr. polis: we have one more speaker remaining. two more speakers. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time and let my friend proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: good to see you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for managing and i thank the distinguished gentleman from colorado. mr. speaker, we are not the judiciary. we are the people's voice. we are the united states congress. the issue of whether a court has ruled any of this unconstitutional is the prerogative of that court. but we have the prerogative to address the issues dealing with the people's voice. so i am disturbed that this comes to the floor first as a suspension, which was defeated by the people's voice, and now through some unique trickery to

come with a closed rule so the people ose voice is shut down. this constitution deserves more. the founding fathers were wise enough to establish three branches of government. this house is called the people's house. and therefore we have the right to have a voice, that voice was already expressed by members on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, who voted this down because of the lack of opportunity to engage on behalf of the people. what more needs to be said? now let me say this about the constitution and about this process. first of all, we have been in some very difficult times and we understand the crisis of terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11. but let us be reminded that in those early stages, when we developed this constitution, those men who were on this floor had to be concerned about the oppressiveness of the state that owned and dominated this country before it was.

yet they did not yield to not putting in the constitution the fourth amendment which says that we should not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. i want to remind my friends that when the democrats attempted to have open hearings in 2005, the republicans shut us down. they would not allow us to have people of a different perspective. they turned off the lights they sent out home, they wouldn't let the people be heard. is that what we're going to get now? so i raise the question about the roving wiretaps. my friend on the other side of the aisle is incorrect. this is more restrictive than general criminal law and all we ask is allow us to amend it so it conforms to general criminal law. that is the point. i offered an amendment with mr. conyers that talks about requiring a different standard other than the knowledge requirement when someone breaks into your house. when they come into your house and come into your office, we need to have a standard that is

articulated so that innocent persons are protected. we realize that we live under a cover of terrorism. we are patriots as well. we join with the patriot act. and i must say to my good friend from wisconsin, the most shining moment of the judiciary committee was after 9/11 when we constructed together, republicans and democrats, i believe, the best patriot act going forward. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yield ms. jackson lee: i will yield in a moment. his majority at the time took that bill we developed in the judiciary committee in a responsible, bipartisan manner with the ehotion and back drop of 9/11 behind us and skewed it in a way that frankly narrowed the rights of americans. it doesn't matter whether the cases have been selected. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield. ms. jackson lee: the case -- it doesn't matter if the cases have been challenged by the court but whether the people of this place, the people's house, have a time to respond. i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: i thank my friend

for yielding. i appreciate tremendous bipartisan support for the effort led by our friend from wisconsin which i think is terrific. the question is that -- that i would propound to my friend is if we look at the february 25 passage of this measure by a vote of 315-97 and the one year period of time, i know the gentlewoman is a member of the judiciary committee and home left-hand security committee certainly would have wanted to have had hearings, why weren't there hearings held in that one-year period of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: we know that february 25 is coming up. the fact that hearings had not been hold -- mr. dreier: last year, last year is when this was passed. ms. jackson lee: hearings had not been held as of december 2010, ehe knows if we were in charge we would have had the appropriate hearings. necessary to go forward before february 25.

may i just have another 15 seconds. mr. dreier: i'll yield her further time. mr. polis: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentlewoman from texas has the time, the -- the time remaining is 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee feather sp --: if -- ms. jackson lee: if hearings were not held by february 21, 2010, the gentleman know he is cannot question whether we would have had the appropriate hearings before february 25 bauds we were not in charge. we ask to let the voice of the people speak. two days ago, the voice of this house spoke, republicans an democrats voted this down because they believe that the voice of the people should assure that the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizure has not been violated. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yields. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

ms. jackson lee: we do have freedom. mr. dreier: would the gentlewoman yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i would be happy to engage in a colloquy. the point is, february 25 of 2010, there was an entire session of congress, it was when the democrats were in the majority, during that period of time through the entire one-year extension, there was not a single hearing held. i know that my friend, as a member of the homeland security committee and judiciary committee would have been a strong proponent of holding those hearings, that's why it surprises me that assuming she did insist on them that she was unsuccessful in the quest to get those hearings. i should add that the organization for the 112th congress is just under way today, in fact, due to the fact that the minority has refused to allow the organization to take place. so there's been a year period of time and i wish very much that there had in fact been hearing last year.

with that, i yield three minutes to my very good friend from tyler, texas, the vice chairman of mr. sensenbrenner's crime subcommittee, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from california for yielding. there have been some great questions raised about these provisions in the patriot act. but it's hard to believe that for all of last year, when democrats had the majority in this body, that if those same arguments had been made to speaker pelosi and to chairman conyers that they would have just continued to deny for an entire year the chance to have a hearing on these things. either they were not canned for the hearings on those things when they had the majority and could have done it or they did ask but if they did ask, why would they elect the same speaker to be their leader going

into this term if she was so entirely nonresponsive to their pleas like they made on the floor this year? going back to 2005, for that first extension. we had some very heated debates as chairman sensenbrenner will remember in private over what we should do. and there were a couple of us that fought hard in private to have sunsets on those provisions and my friend, mr. lungren, happened to have the amendment there that would allow the sunsets on these and some of those concerns are the very concerned that have -- concerns that have been brought up by my democratic friends here. we want to make sure the abuses are not occurring, but so far we have not gotten the information from this administration to tell us what they have been doing. . one of the reaps we have sunsets is so we can force them to be accountable as they have not for the last two years. i want those hearings.

you have been assured we will have those hearings that you couldn't get from your own party last year. we are going to have them. we are going to find out if there are any abuses and then we'll be able to know what should be done. but please know, this is -- this does not allow under the fourth amendment a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy in their own house or place. that does not apply here. this is not to an expectation of privacy in somebody else's property. that's not what the fourth amendment addresses. but i want to find out how this has been used. please know that last year in the extension all the things that my friends across the aisle are screaming about, we didn't have a chance to amend, we didn't have a chance to recommit. you got that on this bill. and as far as the vote on monday, it was under suspension, had to be 2/3, i think it was

stupid to bring it under suspension because if they brought it under a rule it would pass because the vote was 277-148. now they are doing what they should have done the other day. they are new at leadership. they are living and learning. hopefully they are not just living. but we'll have the hearings. we'll address these matters, and we'll find out if it should be done for more than a year. but in the meantime we appreciate the concern and hope you'll express -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. at this point in the 112th congress the judiciary committee has found time to hold several hearings. i have been informed they have held hearings on topics that are certainly important, immigration, health care, and malpractice. yet this topic that's being discussed today, something that's so fundamental to our identity as americans has not benefit interested a single hearing in the 112th congress.

one cannot say it's because they haven't had hearings or they are just constituting themselves. i have been informed they had several hearings to date. they have been on other topics. apparently this topic isn't important enough to warrant a hearing in the early part of the 112th congress. one of the difficulties in exercising oversight with regard to section 215 is that the orders are prohibited from being disclosed that they got in order to anyone but their alternatives. we have -- attorneys. we have very little ability to even find out whether section 215 has been abused or not. with that i would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: the gentleman makes a point. if you are under a gag order, how are we supposed to know if there's any abuses. hello? what mr. gohmert said a moment ago, i want to associate myself with much his remarks. and i have here for the record correspondentence i committeed on november 3, 2009, asking for -- correspondent, i submitted on

november 3, 2009, asking for review of the patriot act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: we create government to security our rights. not to give them away. the patriot act represents giving away rights. not securing them. it's said while it hasn't been adjudicated. the laws that we make derive from our constitutional authority, and that's not just a matter of political will, but it's about moral reasoning. and when we look at section 215 which lets the government obtain orders from private records or items from people not connected to any investigation, when we look at section 206 which lets -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: additional 30 seconds. mr. kucinich: look at section 206 which allows the f.b.i. to obtain an order from fisa to wiretap without having to specify the target or device,

when we look at section 6,001 which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of nonu.s. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, effectively allows the government to circumvent standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from courts . when we look at these things, these provisions are divorced from our constitutional experience. they are divorced from what we know are commonsense provisions of what our rights ought to be. that's why i'm opposed to the extension of the patriot act. and why if we had any sense we could repeal the whole thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguish chair of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i am excited that my colleagues renewed interest in the constitution. this is a good day for this house and this country. but i can't think of a bill and provision that is have been more

misrepresented than what happens in this patriot act extension. a, i think they make all the arguments in the world why we don't make this permanent. let's give it an extension so you have time to talk about t but there is an inescapable fact at hand. by the end of this month, these provisions will expire. there are agents in law enforcement in our intelligence community who are preparing briefs to go to the court, the fisa court, to use these provisions. they will not be able to do it on march 1. why would we let that happen? let me give you a great compamplee. i used to be a f.b.i. agent i worked organized crime. we built a case, did a brief, took it to the judge and got a court order to do whatever. roving wiretaps. yes, before this bill, roving wiretaps. why? because they would use different phones to conceal the criminality of their efforts. guess what?

we have that happening now with terrorists. they go and buy 1,000, 1,000 phones that you buy that are already preprogrammed. these use it for one call and throw it away. what you're saying is we don't care somehow it's ok for you to go after a drug dealer, a mafia don who uses his brother-in-law's phone, but you don't want to use this provision to go after a terrorist who is trying to hide their identity and their conversations and their content to build a radiological bomb. it's lewd dangerous. -- ludicrous. why would we do that to ourselves? make no mistake, you are putting americans in danger when you let this expire. on the roving wiretap, the f.b.i. director today said in an opening hearing less than 500 times, it's even been used. it is hard to get a wiretap. but what you're saying is after march 1, we can continue to do

it for a drug dealer, but you can't go to the fisa court and get a wiretap on a terrorist who is using these phones for god knows what. why would we do that to ourselves? why would we jeopardize american safety when it comes to business record at the "new york times." before he wanted to do this evening, you could actually go to the hardware store and get those business records where he was buying materials to assemble a bomb under the fisa court, the patriot act. but what you're saying is we would rather wait until it explodes and kill thousands and thousands of people and the f.b.i. can go to the same hardware store and use a criminal subpoena to get the same records. it makes no sense whatsoever that we would let this bill expire at the end of the month and jeopardize the safety and security of the united states. when you look at the lone wolf provision, if you heard what the director of the nctc today and yesterday was talking about, the most dangerous threat that we

have is somebody like alackey from yemen trying to radicalize an individual and get them to do something god awful like the new york -- times square bomber, christmas day bomberer, like the hassan shooting at fort hood. that's their interest. you take away the lone wolf provision, and the government can't quite prove that they are a part of al qaeda, but we know they are doing something, you have handcuffed them to stop it before it happens. one of the reasons that we don't have an attack who are is because this act has been in place and they have used it judicial judiciously. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from colorado has 6 1/2 minutes left. and the gentleman from california has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. polis: i would like to inquire if there are other

speakers? mr. dreier: i have one speaker and i look forward to closing with a grant total of 15 seconds after we hear the eloquence of the gentleman from drexel hill, pennsylvania. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. dreier: when i get 15 seconds. mr. speaker, with that i yield two minutes to a hardworking new member of this body, my friend from drexel hill, pennsylvania, as i said, mr. meehan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a great pleasure to be here as a congressman. before i came here i served as a prosecutor, both a federal prosecutor and state prosecutor. and i have actually been probably one of the few people who has actually been involved in the investigations who have used the patriot act. used the patriot act against the proclaimed imperial wizard of the kkk, plotting to take hand grenades to blow up an abortion clinic. it helped us to resolve the case. what's happening today by virtue

of these provisions is not just use what's important in 2003 but to appreciate the changing nature of technology and the need for law enforcement to be able to keep in pace with that. this roving wiretap simply allows law enforcement to be able to track the individual rather than the phone. and you have to appreciate that law enforcement is operating in real time. i have heard many references as well to the idea of the sort of lack of due process. and because we are dealing with the issue of a potential terrorist, we are looking at it differently from the context of the probable cause context, but we are going before the fisa court. mr. rogers explained specifically that the need to take these same information of probable cause before a court and even if that phone is changed after the fact, we have to report back to the judge. about what has been done with that phone. the protections have been built

in with what congress did. i was in the justice department when we came before you and you fixed these provisions. significantly. and lastly, i now chair a subcommittee on homeland security dealing with the issue of terrorism and the lone wolf provision. it was janet napolitano who talked about the changing nature of the threat and this being one of the most serious times since 9/11. mr. speaker, we must stand together and support those that are on the frontline with these commonsense changes that have already been put into the bill. we are not going over new territory here. what we are doing is allowing those on the frontline to use the tools before them to keep america safe. i urge support for this provision. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to again bring your attention, mr. speaker, to section 215, and the difficulty with which we in this body and the american people as a whole have with regard to exercising

oversight over abuse of government authority. an example that i gave earlier, the american library association, confirmed that the federal government went into a library and asked for the list of everybody who checked out a book on osama bin laden. recipients of 215 orders can't even disclose that they received such an order to anybody but their attorneys. so what ability do we have as the people's house to exercise oversight about whether there are abuses? it's been brought up by several people on the other side, my colleague from wisconsin, oh, there aren't abuses. if there is a secretive process that prevents us from knowing about abuse, how are we to know whether therer abuses? i also want to discuss section 206 that we are discussing today. the provision of the bill that allows the government to conduct the roving wiretaps. this ayou los -- allows the government to obtain warrants that don't even specify the person or object that's being tapped.

it could involve tapping an entire neighborhood of telephones. the suspect might use, an unnamed suspect, might use or might not use. there's nothing even specifically prohibited from being an entire city of television -- telephone calls being tapped. we don't know how it's been used. before the amendment clearly states the warrants need to specify the person and places to be seized and searched with particularity. mr. speaker, we began this session of congress by reading the united states constitution, including the fourth amendment, here on the house of representatives. we did that to help make sure the executive branch or the legislative branch don't have unfettered power to decide single-handedly who and how to search private citizens and seize their properties. the founding fathers were rightfully worried about the possibility of the central government issuing general war rants -- war rents that would give it far -- warents that would give it far-reaching power to interconvenient in the

private lives. we should honor the founder father's -- founding father's requests. now, the justification used for this provision is that the government needs to have the ability to spy on a suspect as they move from phone to phone. now, no one objects to that authority when the security of the american people are at stake, but that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't have to specify who they are going to spy on and under what conditions. in fact, under federal criminal law, the government's already required to state either the person or place that's subject to the wiretap. it's these sort sorts of commonsense provisions we can achieve bipartisan consensus on to provide a longer term stability with regard to the necessary provisions of the patriot act. . the final section that will be re-authorized in the bill, section 6001, teals with the quote-unquote lone wolf provisions which allow credit

the u.s. even if they're not connected to any terrorist group or foreign power. now, this authority is only granted in credit courts and again, threatens our understandings of the limits of our federal government's investigate -- investigatery powers. it blurs the line between domestic national security and foreign intelligence. it's clear we allow a process to improve this. my friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about the growth of goth. yet despite the rhetoric of how the government is trying to take over your lives, this, their fifth bill under a rule actually gives the government the ability to spy on innocent americans. no wonder so many republicans join so many democrats in voting against this bill earlier this week. i urge all of my colleagues who are worried about the unchecked growth of the state, anyone who seriously believes in protecting the rights and liberties of

americans or anyone who simply thinks we need to take some time to look at these issues dnd e-- and debate them to vote no on this bill an force a zugs of these issues rather than vague promises of future hearings or future markups, let's accelerate that timeline, mr. speaker to ensure that the concerns of the american people to help protect what it means to be an american. what is so close to our identity as americans protecting our individual liberties as according to the founding fathers articulated in our constitution we can reconcile that with the need to protect the american people and let us begin that work and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time of the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i yield back the -- yield myself the plans of my time. the only way for us to guarantee the rights of every american and ensure we will be going down the road to be a safe nation is to pass this extension so that

these very able gentlemen can proceed with the kinds of hearings that are necessary to ep sure that all the rights with eneed are protected and that we are a safe an secure country. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to legal cause of rule 20, a 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 79 is ordered. there will be a five-minute vote on ordering the previous

question on house resolution 73 and adopting house resolution 73, if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

can

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nays are 176. the resolution is adopted. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 73 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 7, house resolution 73, resolution providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 72, to directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing pending and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the federal government, particularly with respect to their affect on jobs and economic growth. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 240 and the nays are

180. the previous question is order ed. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from cole. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has requested the yeas and nays. those in favor of the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 255, the nays are 169.

without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 73, i call up house resolution 72. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 6, house resolution 72, resolution directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending and proposed regulations and orders of agencies of the federal government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 73, the amendment printed in the resolution is adopted and the resolution as amended is considered read. the resolution shall be debatable for 9 hours and 0 minutes with 30 minutes equally and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader.

eight hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members on the committees of agriculture, energy and commerce, financial services, the judiciary, national resources, oversight and government reform, transportation and infrastructure and ways and means. and one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members on the committees of education and the work force and small business. the chair would ask members to vay indicate the well. -- vacate the well. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to vacate the aisles and the well.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may recognize. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. will the house please be in order. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: i ask unanimous consent that each member have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. graves: mr. speaker, as chairman of the small business committee, i see the impact that regulations have on small businesses. harmful federal regulations can

put serious hurdles in the way of entrepreneurship, making it difficult to create jobs and expand businesses. as we try to encourage a lasting, stable economic recovery, it is critical we review and analyze the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses and make sure regulators are not making irreversible decisions that could constrain small businesses, reduce access to capital and harm the overall growth of the american economy. not only are regulations potentially harmful to small businesses, there are too many regulations for businesses to follow. in 2010, the federal register, daily difficult guest contained 82,000 pages in comparison to the 42,000 pages in 1980. president reagan and every president since ordered federal bureaucrats to review regulations. despite this, very few rules are ever repealed.

president reagan has ordered the office of management and budget to review new regulations and despite this, federal agencies continue to issue new regulations. president reagan and every president since has issued an executive order mandating that agencies promulgate rules in which benefits exceed the costs. agencies continue to issue regulations imposing undo costs on small businesses. reporting and record keeping requirements continue to bury spall business owners. ultimately what is at stake is whether small businesses will succeed in the free market or have their success determined by the whims and dictates of federal bureaucrats. if the president and agencies are inable to stem -- unable to stem this tide and allow small businesses do what they do best which is create jobs, then congress has to act. the resolution before us today is just that. a call for congress to act. i strongly endorse this resolution and i look forward to

the committee on small business reviewing agency regulations that are duplicative, unnecessary and otherwise unhibtive to small business expansion. with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. new york. the chair begs forgiveness. we recognize the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. speaker, small businesses are central to the economic recovery currently under way. unfortunately there are many obstacles for entrepreneurs to overcome in order to be successful. one of the most notable is regulatory burdens. the hours upon hours it takes an entrepreneur to navigate and complete federal, state or municipal government paperwork. this impediment has grown dramatically in recent years. according to the s.b.a.'s office

of advocacy, rules imposed from the federal government now cost americans $1.75 trillion each year. this is 50% higher than the $1.1 trillion in costs reported in 2005. we know that these burdens fall heaviest on small firms. research shows that small businesses face an -- regulatory cost per employee, an amount that is 36% higher than those facing large firms. and federal agencies continue to relieve tens of thousands of pages of regulations each year. with this problem getting worse, it is certainly worth congress' attention and has already received it. in the committee of small business, we have been reviewing regulations in a bipartisan year -- fashion for years.

as a result of this examination, we have called on federal agencies to modify or eliminate regulatory requirements that adversely affect small firms, whether they're related to medical equipment, accounting requirements of the s.e.c., real estate procedures at heart or environmental regulations at the e.p.a. the reality is that we already do what this resolution calls for. as a result today's resolution does not help one small business person. it sets up a bureaucratic process here in congress with a goal of producing a list of regulations. how does a list help small businesses? it doesn't. anyone that has spent five minutes with a small business owner knows that this is a tough program for them.

this resolution is nothing more than a vehicle to rehash all politically motivated fights and just create more paperwork here in congress. instead of approving this book keeping resolution, what we need to do is make sure that the actual tools already available to reduce regulatory burdens are effective. this includes the regulatory flexibility act which mandates that federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of federal regulations as well as conduct periodic reviews of rules that have a significant impact on businesses. making this laws work better and expanding them further is what we should be doing instead of passing this resolution. requiring tougher, a more agency reviews of reg well as

considering broader economic affect of regulations unnecessary. here in the house our committee reported bipartisan legislation in the 110th congress, to do just that. as we navigate this issue over the next 24 months, we cannot lose sight of who we are trying to actually help. it is the small business owner that needs our assistance, unfortunately. if this resolution is the best which we can do, small businesses may have to wait a long time for real and meaningful relief. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all time on their resolution be yielded back and h.r. 72 be object rupted so we can move to consider job creating legislation.

the speaker pro tempore: dozen the gentleman yield for the purpose of that unanimous consent request? mr. graves: no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not yielded. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. we will continue this debate that will end up not creating one single job. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jort. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, the chair of the subcommittee on health and technology, mrs. ellmers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. chairman, and, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for two minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. ellmers: thank you. in all of my years in business, i can honestly say that i have never seen an administration so prepared to regulate nearly every ailment either real or perceived. nearly every segment of industry has been subjected to increased

regulation, whether it be banking, energy, automotive services and of course health care. ronald reagan once said, government exists to protect us from each other. where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. as a nurse and small business owner, i worked with my husband as a clinical director of the trinity wound care center in dunn, north carolina, where i saw firsthand the damage that government regulations can do to the growth of small businesses. the cost of these rules piles up. it's easy to understand why businesses are reportedly sitting on $2 trillion in cash. businesses don't know the true cost to comply with the rules just imposed and are concerned about the costs and rules yet to come. no business can properly plan with roaming regulatory activity . this halts job growth and

investment in its tracks. just yesterday a small business owner in my district testified in the small business committee about this issue. he said, working through a recession is tough, but adding to the burden with cumbersome and confusing new laws and regulations makes a recovery twice as hard. the uncertainty being created by washington is stifling his small business recovery. he testified that the new health care law and uncertainty it's creating for small business owners makes it harder for him to determine what his costs are. this is a time when he is struggling to meet the most basic costs of running his business. another witness, a restaurant owner, even stated that he -- if he had started his business today would probably decide against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. gave gave mr. speaker, i'd yield the gentlelady 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr.

chairman. he even stated that he wouldn't start his business. he further stated that he still may have to close his doors. beyond existing businesses, regulations may prevent new firms and startup it's -- startups from entering the market. these startups are the very businesses that create the jobs in america. according to the study -- to a study using business dynamic statistics, between 1977 and 2005 in their first year new firms add an average of three million jobs. my message today is simple. we must remove burdensome regulations so that businesses can grow and entrepreneurs can start new businesses. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes -- jiret. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for as much time as he may consume. amountality thank you, mr. speaker. the rapidly -- mr. altmire: thank you, mr. speaker.

the rapidly expanding regulatory burden is a bipartisan problem and i commend the chairman of the committee, my friend from missouri, for his efforts in working not just in his time as chairman but working with the committee in the previous years. and know that he understands that this is not a republican or a democratic problem, because the regulatory burdens on small businesses increased by $30 billion from the years 2001 to 2008 and federal regulations now cost americans $1.3 trillion each year -- $.75 trillion each year which is up from the $1.1 trillion annual costs in just 2005. last year the federal register contained 80,000 pages in its first year in print. the federal register contained 2,355 pages. and each year federal agencies continue to release thousands of pages in new regulations accompanying every access of information. and i know that the gentleman understands that and we share

the goal of reducing this burden because the burden is dert mental and it affects small businesses. in fact, mr. speaker, studies indicate that adhering to federal rules cost $10,585 per worker for small businesses with 19 or fewer workers, but only 78% of that amount for businesses with 500-plus workers. it affects small businesses disproportionately. overall on a per employee basis, it costs $2,400 or 45% more for small businesses to comply with federal regulations than their larger counterparts. small businesses face the greatest disadvantage when complying with environmental and tax regulations, compliants with environmental regulations cost $3 -- 364% more in small firms than large and 67% more for the cost of corporate tax compliance. so we agree on the problem. the question is, where do we go

from here? and this is where i have a concern with what chairman graves is putting forward. what does h.res. 72 call for that we're not already doing? the committee on small business has been reviewing regulations in a bipartisan fashion for years, the gentleman has been involved in that. and as a result of these examinations, it's called on federal agencies to modify or alter regulatory requirements that impose costs on small firms. this is included regulations per taping to medical equipment, accounting requirements at the s.e.c., real estate procedures at h.u.d. and environmental regulations at the e.p.a. and on it goes. so the reality, mr. speaker, is, we've already done as a committee what this resolution calls for. and with that, mr. speaker, i would ask to insert in the record the 112th congress small business committee's oversight of federal regulatory paperwork burdensed a mive plan, what the committee has already -- burdens

administrative plan, what the committee has already passed the speaker pro tempore: without objection. amountality my question for the gentleman from missouri to answer -- mr. altmire: my question for the gentleman from missouri to answer during the debate is, what exactly does this resolution do for small businesses that we're not already doing? is there anything in this that's not already being done now? does it actual reduce real regulatory burden on small businesss? does it reduce paperwork, does it limit government requirements on the small business community? i would submit that this particular resolution does not. it sets a bureaucratic process here in the congress with a goal of inventory of regulations, a long list of inventory of the regulations, but the list will be submitted as part of an administrative reporting process, does nothing for small businesses. so i would suggest, mr. speaker, in closing, that instead of approving this book keeping resolution, what congress really needs to do is strengthen the tools it already has available to reduce regulatory burdens. this includes the regulatory

flexibility act which mandates the federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of federal regulations, strengthening the requirements and increasing agency reviews and regulations, regulatory relief that we passed here in the congress during the 110th congress reported out by the small business committee related to bipartisan regulatory reductions, and as we continue to revisit these issues here in the 112th congress, we must remember that small businesses are who we're trying to help. so in closing i'm concerned, mr. chairman, that what this legislation does is added unnecessary step to getting down to the business that we can all agree on which is actually reducing the regulations that we all agree are a problem and i would yield back to the ranking member the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time to the gentlewoman from new york. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from

louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. landry: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . >> one much my constituents wanted to start a small business and he had the credentials to secure a small loan and run a successful business, helped create jobs. he had approval from two banks, $200,000 in cash, a prime location, renovations to bring the building to code, $205,000 in equipment and fixtures. 800-plus credit score and 20% -plus cash and had a sound business plan showing 14% profit. his business would employ 10 to 15 full-time employees and 10 to

20 part-time employees. his appraisal came in $200,000 more than he needed. everything looked great, right? everything looked great until his community small bank told him they could not make that loan due to new regulations and directed him to work with a larger bank and through s.b.a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. landry: the feds wanted him to pay back the loan. that sounds like someone buying a house and having to prove he can pay the note without a job. mr. speaker, we need to get our government back on the side of the american people, free enterprise, small businesses and job creators. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield to the

gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. clarke: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.res. 72. h.res. 72 is basically a solution in search of a problem. the house small business committee already has a long bipartisan legacy of providing oversight and when necessary, calling on government agencies to alter regulatory requirements that adversely affect small businesses. h.res. 72 does nothing to assist small businesses to create jobs, nor does it reduce federal requirements on small businesses. all it does is order committees to do what they already do any way. instead of distracting the american people's attention, with this employ, disguised as a resolution, we should be doing what the american people want

from us, which is to focus our efforts on the sorl needed and real job creation measures. we are currently in our fifth week of the 112th congress and the new majority has not brought one bill to the floor that specifically focuses on job creation. how much longer must the job seekers of brooklyn wait before the new majority begins bringing legislation to the floor that promotes meaningful job creation? if this is the best we can do, we are falling woefully short of the expectation of american small businesses. president obama has made it clear that his primary objective is to promote job growth. we should be working with president obama and the american people by bringing to the floor substantive legislation specifically targeted to what our small business entrepreneurs and meaningful and substantive

job growth. i thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back to the ranking member the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back to the the gentlewoman from from new york. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i would yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. tipton: thank the gentleman from missouri, mr. speaker. regulations cost the american people $1,750,000 000,000 and the obama administration has placed an additional $26.5 billion drain on the american economy. 10 came from the e.p.a. including job-killing

regulations of carbon emissions and increased cafe standards. the cost of new regulations alone total $23 billion annually. these e.p.a. regulations go counter against the free-market principles and impact rural communities, small businesses and families in my district. we simply cannot continue down the path of creating unnecessary regulatory traps that drain our economy and do little more than peenalize small businesses and discourage job creation. not all regulations are warranted. commonsense rules play an important role in our economy in keeping the american people safe. common sense has been lost in the regulatory process that has become politicized with bureaucracy and overlap. as a small business owner, i know the negative impact that unnecessary regulation and excessive government involvement can have on entrepreneurs. just yesterday, i participated

in a hearing with the small business committee, where we focused on one such example of the job-killing government interference of the 1099 reporting requirement included in the president's health care law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield to the gentleman 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mr. tipton: repealing the 1099 requirement is a good start and our focus must remain on restoring economic climate in our economy so it will not be ripe with unnecessary regulation so small business can do what it does best, create jobs and grow our economy. as chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture, energy and trade for the small business committee, i will take action. the fact that the federal regulated markets on small businesses do more than any other sector is not acceptable. it is time we change the way that regulation is enacted and increase congressional

oversight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i would like to inquire how much time each side has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york has five minutes remaining and the gentleman from missouri has 7 1/4. ms. velazquez: how many speakers does the chairman have? mr. graves: i have three more, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek time? ms. velazquez: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: at this time, i would yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from tennessee mr. fleischmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fleischmann: i rise on behalf of small businessmen and women across america in their fight to grow. winston churchill once said if you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy respect for the rule of

law. and that is exactly what our government is doing. we're destroying respect for law and losing the respect and trust of those who sent us here to do our job, not dictate regulations, how they do their jobs. government regulations are putting a strange willhold on businesses in america and it must be reined in. i just spent 12 days in the third district of tennessee and i heard the same thing over and over again. chuck, get the federal government out of our lives. it's destroying our businesses and preventing us from growing. as a member of the small business committee, i was proud to co-sponsor the small business paperwork relief act that does away with the 1099 reporting regulation found within obamacare. it is long overdue for the government to get out of the way and allow the american

entrepreneur to do what they do best, create jobs and produce capital. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: i rise to oppose house resolution 72. this is a gym mick that wastes time. i do not open owes its spirit but debating a bill that is redundant. it is already the job of committees to review regulations and laws and the committee on small business has been actively doing this. but this bill doesn't do one thing to help small business. it does nothing to actually reduce real regulatory burden on small businesses. it does not reduce paperwork,

nor limit government requirements on the business community. in fact, it only sets up a bureaucratic process here in congress with a goal of producing an inventory of regulations, something we already do. we have already passed strong bills, the regulatory flexibility act and most recently the dodd-frank bill, which sets up a very strong protection, something that has not been done before, the consumer protection agency must meet with small businesses before any new regulation is passed. so why aren't we doing something to actually help small business come out from this tough recession? why haven't we vote odd a single bill creating jobs since the republicans took over the majority? why haven't we voted on a single bill to help small businesses? small businesses are responsible for 2/3 of net new jobs, but if this resolution is the best we

can do, small businesses will have to wait a long time for real relief. and that's not good enough for our economy or the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i only have one more speaker. i would yield two minutes to the the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. coffman: i rise today in support of house resolution 4, the small business paperwork mandate elimination act of 2011. yesterday, we heard testimony in the small business committee from the bill's author, representative dan lungren of california. in addition, small business owners, including a constituent of mine also testified. house resolution 4 repealed the provision from the recently

passed reform law that are requires every business to file a 1099 form with the i.r.s. for every vendor with which they conduct business transactions of $600 or more on an annual basis. this requirement will force businesses to use scares resources to comply with this burdened government mandate and take away from their ability to grow and create jobs. in these tough economic times, it is important for government to take proactive steps that will foster small business expansion and job growth. unfortunately, the recently passed health care reform law will lead to the opposite. increase government mandates, such as the 1099 reporting requirement will lead to reduced revenues, job losses and will only extend the economic downturn with high levels of unemployment. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the small business paperwork mandate

elimination act of 2011, which will rid american businesses of this job-killing requirement. we must start over and pass meaningful reforms that will lower the cost of health care for all americans while supporting growth of america's small businesses. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the chairman doesn't have any other speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, the resolution we are considering today will not help one single small business. it will not reduce paperwork for entrepreneurs, nor will it result in a less intrusive government. this resolution will do none of

this. the previous speaker was talking about the fact that yesterday we held a hearing in the small business committee discussing the burdens of 1099's. and we know that there is bipartisan agreement on this issue. so let's fix it, instead of wasting time, hours, here that will take us no where. so why can't the republican leadership bring the issue of 1099's where there is bipartisan agreement and get it done? that will help small businesses and it will create jobs. but this resolution will not achieve that. what it does do is create bureaucratic bookkeeping requirmentse for house committees. i guess for some, it might be a good sound bite, but this does not provide any concrete

solutions for our nation's small business owners who are drowning in government regulations. . if we want real change, we have to chame how executive agencies create and approve changes. this means businesses are involved in the process, not just a token role. and they should consider the impact on the business community before they begin writing the regulation not when it's nearly complete. changes like this are long overdue. the reality is the regulatory burden has grown dramatically under both the republican an democratic administration, rising by over $30 million under the george w. bush administration alone. this is a bipartisan problem that needs a bipartisan solution.

with this in mind, i look forward to working with anyone that is interested in bringing real regulatory relief to small businesses. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: is it appropriate, i have one speaker who just showed up. 13r0 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may yield. >> i yield one minute to mr. west. mr. west: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr.ing. as we have seen throughout our country and also especially my con fregsal district 22 in florida this health care bill has been detrimental to the survival and growth of our small businesses. employers are choosing to drop employees from their health care , which will flood the health

care pool leading to more expense i health care. smaller firms pay more per employee to comply with federal regulations than larger employers. comes out to about $10,585 per employee for small employers. these regulations pose a burden on the country. the obama administration promulgated 59 regulations in 2009, 62 in 2010, another 109 are in the works and the dodd-frank bill require no fewer than 153 new rules by a dozen agencies in a few years. the toe call cost is roughly $1.75 trillion each year. all the federal red tape, tax and regulatory straitjacket is crippling our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. west: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentlelady still yields back her last minute? the gentlelady has yielded. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. graves: i want to say, it's not a democrat or republican issue. rather, it's an issue of good government and it identifies those irrational rules that represent barriers to job growth. mr. speaker, the last congress and this administration passed bill after bill after bill that either tacked or regulated businesses and small firms right out of business. it's going to take time to unravel that mess. with this bill, again, we're going to identify a lot of irrational rules that represent those barriers. with that, i would strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i greel back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> yes, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: i rise to support the continuing resolution. my colleagues on the other side will oppose the effort, claim werg seeking to strip basic public health and safety protections. no one is in favor of hurting those in those areas, but that's not the purpose of us being here today. we've had hearings on rules and

regulations and how they hurt job creation this gives power back to the committees to then do that fine tooth comb through rules and regulations and address what the president talked about in the state of the union. whether it's rules and regulations that don't make sense, we need to eliminate them. we need to focus on job creation. we can't regulate existing businesses into the ground on the hope that better ones will come later. we must protect the jobs we currently have and open the door for new businesses as well. as the chairman of the subcommittee on environment and the economy, i am particularly interested in the activities of the e.p.a. i'm going to talk about three examples. one we heard yesterday in testimony. the united states deal came before us, it said imagine a regulation where we have to decrease ethe -- decrease the heat in preparation of steel to

comply with knocks but as we meet the e.p.a. standards on greenhouse fasses, we have to use the same process and heat it up. under one regular, they have to keep it low to comply with nitrous oxide and object other they have to heat it up to comply with greenhouse gas rules. what is a steel company going to do? they're going to move to china. you can't develop rules and regulations that cannot be complied with by existing, knowning technologies. that was a perfect example. another one that i find, a lot of these things not only hurt jobs but they're going to hurt the environment. the example is the speck lage of used oil as a solid waste. now what this sounds like what are they talking about?

many of us, and there's times when many of us when we were young would change our own oil. get underneath the car, pull the plug, drain the oil. fortunately in today's world, you can take it to an auto repair shop, you can take it to maybe a parts store and you can then recycle that used oil. not if the e.p.a. has its say. because what they do in the retief in addition of this is the only way you can dispose of this offbrand, off used oil is to burn it. oh, that's real great for the environment. burning the used oil. and what will the home do-it-yourselfer do? they'll probably pour it on the ground. so e.p.a. regs not only hurt job creation but they have a great effect in hurting and harming the economy.

the next one, one of the issues we'll address next week in the committee is coal ash byproducts. this is another one that's curious in which the e.p.a. is trying to meddle in, despite e.p.a.'s own testing and admitance that these coal bibuckets do not qualify as hazardous waste based on toxicity, the e.p.a. wants to label them as toxic material. what does that mean? any byproduct used will then be required to be disposed of in special land fills or dumps, not recycled. coal ash can't go into concrete. gypsum can't go into wallboard. wallboard that has to be developed if you're going to remodel your home, what happens to that wallboard? the cost of doing business increases and these are things that hurt job creation.

we applaud poth because ma in his state of the union when he said you the what, there's too many regulations and we need to ease the regulatory burden. that's the importance of what we're doing here. one of the few things we agree with with the crad managers this will allow us, committee by committee, to go through the process and identify those hippedranses and start to move legislation to address those. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: our highest priority should be to put america back to work. we need jobs, investment, and growth. but that's not what we're doing. yesterday, the energy on commerce held a hearing attacking women's reproductive

rights and another promoting legislation to roll back the clean air act and today we spend all day debating a meaningless resolution no one disagrees with. none of this will create any jobs or make our economy stronger. the resolution we are debating directs several committees, including my committee, the committee on energy and commerce, to conduct oversight of government regulations. well, i support oversight and reforming unnecessary or outdated regulations. that's part of our job. we don't need a resolution to do our job. but we need to be honest with american families. our economy is not in a recession because of regulations. we are in a recession because wall street ran amok and federal regulators were asleep on the job. it was too little regulation of wall street, not overregulation, that caused our economic woes. and that's why this resolution

is going to do nothing to get our economy growing again. i ask my colleagues to remember the collapse of wall street in 2008. this meltdown in the financial markets through our tissue threw our economy into the deepest recession since the great depression. millions of americans lost their jobs and it cost u.s. taxpayers billions of dollars to bail out a.i.g. and wall street banks. the cause wasn't regulation, as alan greenspan, the head of the federal reserve board testified before me and other members of the oversight committee, he had, quote, made a mistake in promoting deregulation. he said he had, quote, found a flaw in his free market ideology and was in a state of shocked disbelief. the deepwater horizon oil spill wreaked havoc on the economies

of the gulf states. it wasn't caused by too little oversight and too much regular ligs. it was because there wasn't enough oversight and regulation. thousands of jobs were lost in the gulf because deepwater horizon was not subject to proper safety and environmental regulations. no one disagrees that ongoing oversight of regulations is necessary. in his address to the chamber of commerce on monday, president obama said that federal agencies are already conducting a comprehensive review of existing regulations to identify and fix those that are outdated and unnecessary. as the president said, we should design regulations intelligently and get rid of regulations that have outlived their usefulness or don't work. but this isn't going to create new jobs, reduce our deficit or

make the middle class stronger. to grow our economy, we need to invest in new clean energy jobs. we need to bring broad band kecks to all parts of america and we need to continue to make health care more efficient. that's why we should -- that's what we should be talking about on the floor today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time on our side an i ask unanimous consent that representative degette control the time for the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield two and a half minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minns. -- for two and a half minutes. >> the united states is at risk of losing its status as the medical device manufacturer.

regulatory uncertainty and a delay and inefficiency at the food and drug administration are damaging this critical industry. shorter, more predictable and more transparent approval processes in europe have led many device companies to seek to market their products in europe before submitting them to the f.d.a. mr. pitts: this hurts american patients who on average having an sess to innovative medical devices two years later than places in european countries and in some cases never have access to these devices. and does a longer, more uncertain regulatory process result in making american patients any safer? the answer is no. according to recent studies, medical devices marketed through the shorter, more transparent european regulatory processes are statistically as safe as f.d.a. cleared and approved devices and have comparable patient outcomes. . innovative device

companies are moving jobs overseas and these are good jobs. jobs and medical technology pay, 40% higher than the national average earnings. san diego-based company is a case study of what regulatory burdens can do to a company. the company reports that in the last 18 to 24 months, quote, longer f.d.a. approval time has rilted insignificant revenue loss estimated at $70 million, increased operating expenses of $2 million and hundreds of jobs eliminated and less in research and development. it is becoming far more firblet and faster to innovate outside the u.s.a. in such places as europe. non-u.s.a. companies have transparent practices we have seen delays of 3 to 70 months which we are rethinking where to

place research and development jobs and even whether or not to invest in innovation of new products, end quote. this is one company. this scenario is playing out nationwide. unfortunately, the scenario is playing out in prescription drug space and lack of uncertainty and the drug approval process is hurting job creation and hurting american pishts. we need to improve these. and american access to these jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i yield myself for five minutes. mr. speaker, congress needs to get going. we were sworn in over a month ago now when the highest priority in this country, everybody agrees, is creating jobs, and frankly, with unemployment sill hovering around 9%, we have no time to

waste. arguing about what we should do. this resolution does not do one thing to create one job. so once again, what are we doing? we are standing on the house floor debating for 9 1/2 hours, wasting the american people's time, which is time we could be using to sit down on a bipartisan basis and bring jobs, investment and growth to this country. what we're doing here is time consuming, but it really means nothing in the end. it's a resolution. it's a resolution that directs certain standing committees to look at regulations and to decide if they think that it has some impact on jobs. it lists a number of matters for consideration.

it gives no deadline by which the committees have to investigate these issues. it gives no standard for the various matters for consideration, including impede private sector job creation, et cetera. so we'll have long debates over each of those criteria. but what's most unbelievable about this resolution, it doesn't really say what we should do it. let's say all the committees meet month after month determining day after day after hearing after hearing that there is some impeding on business, then what do they do? and that is what is so frustrating, because the american people want us -- they don't want review, inventory or come pellings of regulations but want their families to have jobs. so that's why we need to sit down and talk about how will we

create jobs. this resolution won't save one home from foreclosure or repair one crumbling bridge or potholed road or extend one mile of broadband or provide a patient greater access to hospitals or doctors. it won't do any of that. what's worst, mr. speaker. as we take this debate on today, we need to remember the committees are already bound by the rules of the house to provide proper oversight, we don't need two days to debate a resolution telling the committees already what they have a constitutional duty to do. and frankly, i'm concerned, too, because there's nothing this congress has done today to give us any indication that the majority intends to spend any time creating jobs. we have seven hours of debate on a bill to repeal health care,

which everybody knows isn't going in the other body and doesn't create one job. this week, today, thursday, we passed exactly one piece of legislation. and today, we are done voting for the day. so while at the same time this resolution does nothing to create jobs and nothing, frankly, to make congress expeditiously use its already existing regulatory oversight, it neglects the fact that laws and regulations can be important to protect our constituents' health. for example, when we had insufficient laws and regulations to deal with outbreaks of food-borne illness, we acted in a bipartisan basis to reduce 76 million food-borne illnesses, 300,000 hospitalizations and deaths in the united states. this type of regulation and oversight is important.

it keeps americans safe. it reduces costs to our economy and ultimately helps save jobs. there are billions of dollars of lost productivity to workers, damages to our economy and lost economy that this congress acted in a bipartisan basis to reduce. and mr. speaker, i have introduced legislation also to foster development of a clear, predictable regulatory pathway that enables better and safe products and support of regulatory research to promote the understanding of regenerative medicine. these types of regulatory initiatives can help create jobs in the future and critical work as part of our work in this body. now, look, there is nobody on either side of this aisle who thinks we should have -- i yield

myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. degette: unnecessary or overly burdensome regulation. but that's not what this is about. we have a long history of regulatory review and do that without spending night hours without debating a resolution like this. a few hours ago, we read the constitution together. and everybody remembers that the authority for committees in this congress to review and inventory regulations is already provided. so i would suggest, mr. speaker, that what we do is we bring this date to an end. that we go and focus on are there regulations we can repeal but we really focus on what the american people want us to talk about and that is creating jobs for the american public. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: it is business that creates jobs. easing the regulatory burden helps cre eighths jobs.

i yield to congresswoman bono mack, chairman of the commerce, manufacturing and trade committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. bono mack mr. speaker, we are going to hear a lot today during this debate about how excessive government regulations are hurting our economy, but there are other forces at work as well and they are just as damaging, even perhaps more insidious. after taking office, president obama issued an executive order encouraging federal agencies which is a wink and a nod, to require private labor agreements on government construction projects costing more than $25 million. mr. speaker, with unemployment in my california district, over 14% and unemployment in the construction industry above 20%, these so-called crony contracts are not only wrong, they are i am moral. instead of an executive order, what we need from the white house is a cease and desist order. simply put, project labor

agreements mandating union-labor only are anticompetitive. the big dig in boston is clearly the biggest boondoggle of them all. originally projected to cost $3 billion, this three-mile tunnel project turned out to be one of the most expensive highway projects in u.s. history. at last count, the meter is running, $15 billion in construction costs and another $7 billion in interest alone. when it's all said and done, the big dig is going to cost us $1.2 million per foot. not only do these p.l.a.'s waste taxpayer money, but they are almost un-american. 15% of our construction workers are unionized. every time it is mandated by a government bureaucrat, 75% of america's construction workers, 8 million hard working men and women are told, tough luck, too

bad or maybe next time. since 2007, nearly 2 million construction workers across america have lost their jobs. enough already. let's put an end to political favoritism and demand the best deals for taxpayers and say no to the wink and nod culture in washington. as the new chairman -- i ask for an additional 15 seconds. mr. shimkus: i yield 15 seconds. it -- the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. bono mack i'm going to do everything make made in america matter again and look at what we do here at home to foster competitiveness. with economies struggling to recover it is to do best what is best for all americans and not for a select few. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this resolution being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a waste of time and doesn't address job creation which must be the number one priority of this congress. today we are coming to the floor to spend nearly 10 hours of debate telling the committees of the house to do what they already should be doing. since january 5, when this congress was sworn in, we have not voted on one bill that will strengthen our economy or create jobs. and the republican leadership is putting together a spending bill that will cost our economy jobs. their bill makes sweeping cuts in research and development that will jeopardize america's position as a world leader in innovation. and in the state of the union, the president set the right priorities with his focus on job creation, economic recovery, debt reduction and economic opportunity for all americans. i'm here with my democratic colleagues from energy and

commerce where we worked to keep america at the forefront of the world in clean energy technologies and quality health care. and i'm trying to understand why our committee is down here today wasting our time when we could be having hearings to generate new ideas on how to create jobs and strengthen our economy. republicans don't have a clue. democrats have lots of ideas. investments in green energy will reduce emissions and create countless new jobs. i'm encouraged by the president's announcement this week that he is going to prioritize offshore wind development in areas off the atlantic coast. this is the type of clean energy america should be investing in that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas and create jobs. that's why i oppose the republican plan to cut $900 million from renewable energy programs that create jobs and move america towards a

self-sufficient energy market and doesn't rely on foreign oil. another important issue that we could be discussing in our committee is health science and innovation. the health science industry, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biotechnology and plays a critical role in america's economy. new jersey is the third largest research and development employer in the u.s. with 211,000 jobs supported by health r&d and federal r&d investments are important for growth. the national institutes of health award grants which bring money and jobs to states. in 2007, new jersey received $280 million in research grants from n.i.h. which helped and support 378 new jobs. we need to have forward-looking investments in innovation, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed cutting $1 billion from n.i.h.

in the spending bill they plan to bring to the floor next week. this isn't keeping america at the forefront and will hurt our ability to create high quality, high tech jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the chairman of the oversight and investigation committee, chairman stearns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. my colleagues, recently the oversight and investigation subcommittee held a hearing and i chair this subcommittee. it was one of the first hearings on the rapid pace of regulations that are coming from the obama administration. we made clear to the witnesses that the regulation czar, that we objected to the fact that the administration is considering and issuing regulations with regard to not to jobs and the

economy, but is simply using standards that is so ridiculous as they consider equity, human dignity, fairness and distributetive impacts and i asked them what this meant and he said basically, distribution of income. what? the administration is making a decision based on distribution of income? i thought the market was suppose todd do that, not a government czar. . they prom all fwate major rules, estimate t.d. cost tri-$28 billion. the highest annual level since 1981. along with all these major rules come daunting levels of red tape, the cost of which cannot easily be couldn'ted. the oba maw -- obama administration's ayen da identifies 4,225 rules under

development. the e.p.a. alone has finalized almost 1,000 new regulations sin the start of the administration and also proposed complex new rules affecting our energy system, our trill and manufacturing infrastructure an even the electric power we rely on every day. with this nation suffering from 21 straight months of unemployment or 9% or higher, our focus should be on jobs. burdensome and unnecessary regulation act as a de facto drag on jobs. yet there's no end in sight to the regulations coming from the administration. from our wealth, our health and the free tom to h.i.v. our lives the way we want, it continues to grow and intrude. it's time to reduce this burden and get our economy growing again. >> the gentlelady from colorado.

ms. degette: i would just say in this hearing with professor sunstein the evidence was that the regulations who came out -- that came out in the first two years in the obama administration were less than the regulations that came out in the last two years of the bush administration. with that, i yield five minutes to the congresswoman, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. matsui: i rise in opposition to house resolution 72. this resolution does nothing to actually create jobs and is a distraction from what should be our focus, creating jobs here in this country. instead of spending time debating and creating legislation that would create jobs and further our economic recovery, we are here debating legislation that basically reiterates what the energy and commerce committee is currently

doing. in contrast, i believe that the american people have been clear. they want this congress to focus on jobs and that should be our number one priority. in fact, i recently sent a survey to my constituents asking them what they thought should be the top priorities of this congress. not surprisingly, 1% responded that creating jobs should be our top priority. mr. speaker, i routinely hold clean energy round table forums in sacramento with c.e.o.'s and other local leaders including one just last week and they consistently tell me that they need real incentives and assistance in expanding their manufacturing base an finding new markets abroad for their products and services. in doing so, they recognize that new jobs will be created. they will have additional revenue to purchase new equipment, invest in r&d and

benefit our economy. perhaps instead of debating today's resolution, we could instead be focused on debating legislation that would create jobs. mr. speaker, we need to be focusing on moving our economy forward by creating new jobs in different secors of our economy. just as the president emphasized in his recent state of the union address and announced in the start of america initiative, america must continue to lead the way in inknow rage, in order to both rebuild today's economy and bolster the industries of tomorrow. the clean energy manufacturing sector is a critical area where most leading economists believe our nation can experience the highest job growth potential. in fact, the department of energy has found that continued investment in the u.s. clean energy sector could create more than 750,000 jobs over the next decade. however, it is one area where

the u.s. is unfortunately falling behind many of its competitors, including china and germany. mr. speaker, we must change that. america has a historic opportunity to become a lead for the clean technology manufacturing and creating new, good-paying jobs in this country. that is why i, along with congressman john dingell, recently introduced legislation to bolster the u.s. manufacturing industry with a goal of creating jobs an advancing our nation's standing in the ever-growing clean energy economy. as part of the make it in america agenda, this legislation, h.r. 502, the clean energy technology manufacturing an export assistance act of 2011 would help boost innovation and competitiveness by promoting the manufacturing of clean energy technology at home and supporting its export abroad. the bill helps strengthen

america's domestic clean tech manufacturing industry by directing the commerce department to provide specific tools and resources to those companies that need it most. america's small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses. mr. speaker, manufacturing jobs are the fabric of our country that cowl put millions of americans pack to work. but we must manufacture the products that are in demand and that have an exponential potential to grow and the clean energy secor is the ever-growing industry. but in order to create those jobs this congress must pass legislation that will help us do just that. mr. speaker, this bill passed the house last congress with bipartisan support and it's my hope that it will be considered again soon during this new congress so we can move our nation's clean energy economy forward and create new, good-paying jobs here in this country.

unfortunately, h.res. 72 fails that test. i urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution before us and i yield pack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the yealt yields back. mr. shimkus: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. shimkus: we don't care which administration created burdensome regulations, if we don't -- if they don't help the public, we want to review them. every time you hear the word incentives, it means tax dollars, it means borrowing money from china to reward people. i now yield two minutes to my colleague, mr. murphy who is the vice chair of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. murphy: we have millions of people in america who are out of work or looking for work and we

are facing trillions in deficit spending that affects those jobs. there's four pillars to what we need to to to turn or economy arn. one is the issue of cutting government spending and turning that deficit arn. two, making sure we keep taxes low and regulations fair to promote growth of crobs and not hinder that growth. we must also have trade enforcement law changes that allow us to grow in another way. chi ma alone, for example, is exploiting loopholes big enough to sail a freight ship through. they tax and embargo the development of rare materials and make requirements that the americans can't build a company in the u.s. and ship to china, they offer below market government loans to companies and manipulate their currency. all this has created a great wall of unfair trade practices and we can't sit by while they

undermine our jobs but a fourth pillar is how we gre. while the outer continental shell san francisco off limits for oil drilling, we are passing by massive amounts of jobs and mass i have amounts of economy for our nation. did you know if we were allowed to have drilling on the outer continental shelf, the federal revenue alone, without borrowing money, without increasing our trade deficits would yield $2.5 trillion to $3.7 trillion in trade revenue, all that is base opped the 1970 estimate of how much oil is out there. even though there's not supposed to be an embargo or moratorium on drilling after the gulf of mexico, there is a permatorium because these wells that have opinion allowed to drill before are now told they can't. with the threats of eyipt and the worries about the suez canal, we are sitting by as american families wonnering what

will happen next. let's deal with all these issues and grow american jobs. >> the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from environment, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: any regulations not doing their job, that are imposing excessive burdens, let's change them. i agree with that, the president afrees with that, you're arguing that, and you're right. the american people want regulations limited to achieving legitimate goals and not imposing unnecessary burdens. second, an this is a question, why are we going to debate this? why substitute words for actions? the committee on energy and commerce and all the other committees that are being charged to act on this resolution are free to act and rather than have a discussion an debate about it, ask those committees to come in with what their specific recommendations are. let the house of representatives

vote yes or no on any proposed action. but third, jobs. both sides have been saying we've got to focus on jobs. a couple of very good speeches, mr. murphy if pennsylvania mr. stearns of florida, we agree with that. why don't we dust off a proven and bipartisan job creating bill, home star, which the energy and commerce committee passed out on a bipartisan basis last year and bring it forward to this congress this year. it's something that saves money for our homeowners on their energy bills. it's something that puts local contractors who are reeling from the decline in home building back to work, retrofitting our homes, and it saves $10 billion in nrning bills, creates 170,000 jobs and it's all by using less, not more. it's about efficiency. that's common ground. we're not having a debate about whether we should or shouldn't p

drilling or what's the preferred energy source, coal, nuclear or solar, it's really whatever energy source you're using if you use less of it as a business or as a consumer, you're going to save money. it's something we can do together. the new majority would have the final say on how we would pay for this. it would take care or could be designed in a way to take care of the capital formation concerns that the other side has expressed. so what we're talking about here is important. regulations should be limited to the legitimate purpose for which they're intended. they shouldn't be excessively burdensome. if there are specific regulations that should be adjusted and it requires statutory action, come back with the specific statute, let the body vote on it an move on. that's action, not words. then the common goal we have, even if it's a significant debate and disagreament about how best to fete from here thro, we've got to create jobs in this

economy, home star is a way we can do it with the new majority working with the new minority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. shimkus: can you give us the time? the speaker pro tempore: you have 15 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from colorado has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. shimkus: before i yield, i want to share with my colleagues, we'll have a chance next week to vote on greenhouse gas regulations that will kill jobs. those bills are coming. i yield now to my colleague from tennessee, congresswoman blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? mr. shimkus: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. black baurn: i think our colleagues across the aisle are showing their displeasure. they think it takes regulations to create jobs. i think the american people wise

up. they know that every time a law is passed rules and regulations pile on. they also know if money is coming to d.c., they can't use that money there in their communities to create crobs pause the way it really works is this. government does not create jobs. government creates the environment in which the private sector can create jobs. so last week, as we were home, i visited, i worked with my chambers of commerce and job creators to say, tell us what's getting in the way. we heard about regulation an the overreach of regulation. we heard about auditors and regulators and the fdic. we hear about osha, we heard about the e.p.a. and carbon emissions. from retailers we heard about the f.t.c. from our implement device manufacturers and biotech community, we heard about f.d.a. overreap frch our high tech innovators and others we heard about the overreach of the

f.c.c. regulation is stifling jobs growth. it is time for us to cut back on this $1.75 trillion a year hit. that the business community, the job creators are taking. rein this regulation in an yes, my friends, let's repeal some of these laws ap rules an regulations, get them off the books and free up the private sector so they do what they do best. create the jobs that the american people want to see. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back this egentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps is recognize for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding, mr. speaker. i'm troubled that we're here this afternoon. americans are still facing staggering unemployment rates and our economy has not yet fully recovered.

but instead of focusing on job creation, we're wasting two days and taxpayer dollars on a resolution directing committees to conduct oversight on government regulations. i've been a member of congress for over a decade and i know that committees already doover sight on government regulations without prompting. a well-rub committee will make sewer the regulations are necessary and effective at protebting the american people. in fact the energy and commerce committee, under the leadership of henry waxman in the last congress, did just that. our committee conductedover sight on the failures that led to the b.p. oil spill in the gulf and the reckless lawsuit behaviors that caused a near meltdown of our economy. . after insurance companies dropped individuals from coverage because they got sick, our committee stood up to them.

i'm afraid that this new congress -- in this new congress, american families won't get that same kind of protection. yesterday, our committee held a hearing on legislation that would insert the government into private decisions between a patient and her doctor. we also held a hearing on legislation that would put the interests of polluters ahead of the health of millions of americans, including our children and seniors. that wasn't oversight but just examples of promoting an extreme agenda that puts the public's health at risk. mr. speaker, instead of telling committees to do their jobs, we should be creating jobs for the american people, health care jobs, high tech jobs, manufacturing jobs. this is america's top priority. this is what we should be talking about here on the house floor today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i now yield 1 1/2

minutes to my colleague from ohio who is from the largest manufacturing district in our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latta: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the e.p.a. intend to overturn 30 years of precedent on coal ash despite state regulatory authority and the e.p.a. itself that the tocksity levels of coal ash. in the e.p.a.'s may, 2000 regulatory regulation they concluded that coal ash is not a hazardous waste and doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. the coal ash generated is recycled and being used in cement, concrete, wall board and roofing materials, radioed-based fill materials. while all this is completely

safe, designating coal ash wol halt the beneficial uses which the e.p.a. estimates will lead to $16.7 billion in increased costs per year further damagingor commir. the closure will lead up to 18% of co-generated power, lost jobs and higher electricity costs and further increasing our dependency on foreign countries for energy needs which we cannot afford. i urge support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i now yield the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. inslee: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. inslee: there's nothing wrong with having our committees review regular layings, but the problem is we are wasting 9 1/2

hours when we are involved in a great race, a great competition. we are in a race with china and other places in the world to build a clean energy economy that can create millions of new jobs in solar, wind and electric cars and lithium ion batteries and you can be assured that the chinese aren't wasting 9 1/2 hours when it comes to figure out how to figure out capital formation for solar-powered companies. the chinaes aren't wasting 9 1/2 hours trying to have density transmission line so we can have transmission lines and move electricity across the country. that's what we should be doing on a bipartisan basis. you can be assured that the chinese aren't wasting 9 1/2 hours figuring out to create wind energy putting people to

work building wind farms. that's what we should be doing. you know what? last year, the republicans passed a clean energy standard, which we could be talking about this year on a bipartisan basis. instead, we are wasting 9 1/2 hours talking about something all of us agreed to do. how do the republicans intend to do this going out of the gate next week? we're told that their first act is to remove from our federal law the ability to create jobs in the clean energy sector, because they want to pass their dirty air bill. their dirty air bill will strip the environmental protection agency of the ability to create an incentive for 1.5 million jobs, jobs in the solar sector industry, jobs in the wind industry, jobs in the enhanced geothermal industry. these are jobs.

don't let them pass the dirty air bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to kathy mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in strong support of h.r. 72. a company said the only way to comply with the regulations is to not operate. last month, america is split in the freedom rating. we are no longer an economically free society but a mostly free society because of the costly and duplicate regulations, not labor costs, but regulations. we don't have to look farther than the hard rock mining industry many that operate in washington. despite safeguards implemented by states, the federal government through e.p.a. has decided it needs to step in and

add regulations that will all but certainly drain this industry of capital, forcing businesses to cut jobs, not invest in america and ultimately make us more dependent upon foreign countries for these important minerals. mr. chairman, regulation is not what our nation is all about. america is about being entrepreneurs, innovative, living the american dream. let's get these oppressive rules and regulations off the books. a good first step is passage of the resolution we are considering today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from illinois has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from colorado has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady reserves -- sorry, the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from houston, former

navy fighter pilot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank the speaker and my friend from illinois. i rise today in strong support of h.res. 72. in this economic environment, it is critically important for this congress to find and eliminate government regulations which are damaging to the economy and destroying american jobs. according to the heritage foundation, the current administration has imposed 43 major regulations in fiscal year 2010 alone with an estimated cost of $26.5 billion. a prime example of the senseless regulation is the e.p.a.'s new greenhouse gas regulations, which will adversely affect every business and energy consumer in america. the increased costs associated

with the new e.p.a. regulations will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy costs. those impacted, include small businesses and individuals still struggling to make it out of the current recession. the e.p.a.'s regulations will eliminate american jobs and send them overseas. it's just plain and simple. the bureaucratic e.p.a. permitting process will have increases on compliance costs and will drive companies abroad where the regulatory environment is more favorable. american jobs paid overseas on foreign soil. america suffered 21 straight months of unemployment above 21%. should we reduce the cost of doing business so companies can expand and hire new employees. the new e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations are an attack on energy and will drive up energy

costs, reduce economic activity and destroy american jobs. most importantly, under the constitution, it is congress, not unelected e.p.a. bureaucrats who determines whether and how clean greenhouse gases are regulated. the energy and commerce will be looking at regulations and i yield back. ms. degette: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i now yield two minutes to one of our new colleagues from colorado, mr. gardner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 72 and of congress' new emphasis on oversight. over the past few years, federal agencies have promulgated rules and regulations with little regard on impact of businesses,

jobs and american workers. i met with a business in my district that employs 1,000 people and expressed concern that rules and regulations treaten our energy infrastructure, power stability and electricity costs. in other words, reckless regulation threatens their very existence. i met with a business that employs 5 people whose owner said he won't expand because they don't know what the cost of health care regulations will mean. at a committee hearing just yesterday, businesses stated that the regulatory environment is hindering investment in our economy, not promoting it. in colorado, federal regulations that could you superthe state's role over energy that are set to employ thousands of people in northern colorado. it's time for congress to listen to the voices of all america, listen to the voices that move our country, feed our country,

power our country and make our country great. it is time to put an end to reckless regulation. if there are 1.5 million jobs to be created, then let's get started creating them but not turn to the role of government to regulate people out of business to create other jobs. that's not the job of the federal government. let's put an end to reckless regulation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady. ms. degette: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i rise today to express my deep concerns about attempts to undermine one of our country's most cherished and effective environmental policies clean air act. recent attacks against environmental protections threaten the health, safety and