of the american people. all credible scientific evidence proves that emissions of carbon and other pollute ants change our climate and harm our environment posing risks to our communities and children. americans deserve to breathe clean air and drink clean water. we know beyond any doubt that pollution can increase asthma, heart attacks and cancer. i do support legitimate efforts for regulatory reform. but the majority's attempt to pass a new dirty air act by gutting needed health provisions is a travesty. now, the majority party on the other side will try to tell you we have to make a choice between clean air and jobs. and that is a false choice. we can create, in fact, if we create clean air, we will create an environment where businesses will want to do business in our country. so our country needs

forward-thinking and environmental policies that create jobs and protects public health and we will not tolerate a return to the pollution allowed before the clean air act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. shimkus: i'm glad the gentleman mentioned the clean air act. the clean air act reduced several pollutants. carbon dioxide was never identified in law. in fact, chairman emeritus dingell said it was never designed to regulate carbon. even as the e.p.a. moves in the dex of climate, they have changed the rules. they are not complying with the clean air act buzz of their tailoring rule, picking winners

over loser. if we go down the road to regulate carbon, we raise the costs of creating jobs. jobs move overseas. that's what the waxman-markey debate was last queer. that's why the majority last year could not pass a bill to regulate carbon. because of the impact on jobs. so why are we here in we're not trying to end regulation. we're trying to make sure that there's an economic analysis on what occurs on jobs. what's the job impact. administerors -- administrator jackson, throughout the entire process, could not tell us. they only do it in silos, not the cumulative effect of what are the jobs lost based on regulation. what's the compliance cost? we ought to know that. there's a requirement to comply with rules and regulations when we're competing against china when it has no rules and

regulations, we are less competitive, we lose jobs. is it so harm to feel ask, where is the benefit, a cost benefit analysis of all these regulations? so we'll get a chance, i know i was asked by the other side earlier in the debate, whether is the -- where is the legislation to affect rules and regulations that will create jobs? it's coming next week. it's the greenhouse gas rules and regulations which does not affect the clean air act, which does not chaming, all their portrayals on dirty air, it does not affect a single criteria pollutant in the clean air act. i reserve the plans of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: we are prepared to close, does the gentleman have any speakers? mr. shimkus: we have a few but

if you're ready to close, i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from colorado has four minutes. ms. degette: it has been 12 days since we were sworn in, yet the committee with broad-ranging jurisdiction, everything from energy policy to food safety to health care, even to national league sports. we have not passed one legislative bill in those 36 days. we haven't passed up with bill to repeal an onerous regulation. we have been passed one bill to create one new job. in fact, the first subcommittee markup in the energy and commerce committee is tomorrow. this markup is of an extreme bill which will restrict a woman's right to choose. this is a divisive bill that has

nothing to do with repealing one onerous regulation and in fact it doesn't create one job, except maybe a job for lawyers who if this actually became law would have a field day litigating the legislation. look, mr. speaker, we all agree that if there are burdensome regulations, they should be repealed. but let's not let this discussion devolve into a part is san debate under the guise of regulatory reform. so we know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like the new e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations. we know that they don't like the new health care bill. but qust because those bills have been pp passed and are being implemented does not mean the regulations, per se, cause a loss of jobs.

so what i would suggest the american would like to see, what they told us in the election what they told us since the lech, what all my constituents told me when i was home last weekend, what are are you going to stop the part sap bickering? when are you going to create jobs? i believe if my colleague from illinois and i and the rest of us got together, we can identify a number of regulations, regulations passed urn democratic and republican administrations that are burdensome, that are outdated, and that we could repeal. but in the meantime, let's not -- let's just call it what it is. let's have the debate, if we're going to have it, but let's not call it a debate about burdensome regulations. let's create jobs. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: you have four minutes.

you are recognized for four minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you. i assume the balance of my time. i think this has been a great debate. diana degette is a great friend of mine. we have served here for a long time. i think it's good for the public to understand that we can have trong disagreements without being disagreeable. i'm probably one of the stongest, outspoken loud mouths in the committee, i have been recently, but i think it's also good to know that we can continue, even on very controversial issues on life, and she has very strong opinions an i have very strong opinions but congresswoman degette has my respect and she's a friend. during the last fall, business kept coming to me and say, all we want to be is left alone. that's part of this debate. the democrat majority in fact, in the last two year they had the whole shooting match. these are the same debates you had about us.

you could have addressed the regulatory burdens on business. but you didn't. you had the house you had the senate, you had the presidency, not one bill to ease the regulatory burden. so now, the pendulum has shifted. we're in the job creation. one of the burdens of job creation is excessive regulation. businesses want to be left alone. there's too much uncertainty. we talked about -- what have we done to bring to the floor to help proride certainty? we've voted to repeal the health care law. if you want to talk to businesses both large and small, one of the biggest things that created uncertainty is obamacare. and that was on the floor. the sec thing that created the most uncertainty is climate and a carbon tax. raising the cost. that's going to come to the floor. here are two major provisions passed in this chamber, hurt jobs, we get a chance to address on the floor.

and so this is an important exercise. we're going to be doing it in the committee. we've had four hearings in the committee on issues all around the regulatory burdens. i gave wru the example of u.s. steel. here they've got a n.o.x. requirement, so they keep the burners on low. but a car been requirement would require that the burpers are on high. how do they comply? i'll tell you how they comply. they move the steel mill to a country that does not have those regulations or we import it. should we look at these and address these? the answer is yes. i see my colleague from louisiana has shown up. if my colleague doesn't mind i'd yield whatever time i have left to my colleague from louisiana. >> may i inquire as to the remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: you have 1 1/4 minutes left. >> we had the e.p.a. administrator who tried to state her regulations are help creag ate jobs but we had panelists after panelist of american job creators talking about the e.p.a. regulations are running job out of the country. there must be a parallel universe the bureaucrats are living in. they think they're creating jobs and they are in china, india and other places around the world instead of in america. mr. scalise: the administration not issuing permits in gulf of mexico. you're seeing them in total disarray. there was a tanker hijacked off the coast of oman with yet

another example that this is a volatile world, you've got an administration to -- using regulations to run more jobs out of the country. this is a time we should be creating jobs. i'm glad we're focusing on exposing what those regulations are doing in america, to create jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, to consider reformres. 102 to consider

pending orders morely with respect to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. schmidt: before i give my opening remarks, i would like to yield three minutes to my colleague, mr. coble. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. coble: i rise in support of this resolution. we've heard the resolution -- the express, keep it simple, stupid. the kiss formula. our government needs to do a better job of ad hering to this phrase. there are many examples where the regulatory process to is burdensome and impedes enterprise. they classify lithium cells in batteries as hazardous materials, if implemented, this could create an impediment in getting batteries to consumers, the mill air and government

agencies this could jeopardize manufacturing jobs in my district, jobs we cannot afford to use. d.o.t. also put forth regulations that would implement changes to hours of service regulations. this proposal is soliciting comments on whether to retain the curb -- the current 11-hour time limit or reduce the driving time to 10 hour, something the agency prefer prs. if implemented it will create ramifications for goods movement and affect consumers' wallets and enterprise. the national mediation board published a rule that alters how labor election os cur. under previous guidelines, the joast must vote in favor of unionization. under the new proposed rules this majority is defined by those who actually vote in electionsering meaning theout come could form a union when the majority of persons affected did

not express the desire to do so. this is simply another way for the labor movement to gain traction and dictate an outcome that they cannot achieve otherwise. we support reducing the number of regulations, mr. speaker. that's not to say we support compromising safety. inteed, we do not. mr. speaker, we can do better. we can provide oversight that is simple and straightforward without impeding private intervise. our economy will benefit if we bear in mind the saying, keep it simple, stupid. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- now it goes to their side. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i rise in support of r.res. -- agencies can and do

abuse their regulatory powers. for the last two year, coal miners and those who depend on coal have been struggling with uncertainty created by the environmental protection agency that put its regulatory access to ex-treels. as a result of the clean water act for surface mines, miners are in an untenable limbo, wondering from week to week whether they're mines will get a permit and whether their jobs will end. e.p.a. is setting new timelines and new criteria for permit, timelines and criteria that differ from what is in statute and regulation. they are doing so not through the proper regulatory procedure but through interim guidance, skirting the rule making process that would provide for greater transparency and public comment. .

the agency is setting the precedent for abuses. i stand here supporting the contentions congress ought to check overzealous agencies. we ought to conduct rigorous oversight and siphoning off regulations that hamstring our economy and the well-being of americans and i fully expect our committee, the committee on transportation and infrastructure to soon review the e.p.a. actions throughout coal mining permits throughout the central applachia. i also remind my colleagues this is not a new responsibility. it is the duty placed on congress, the people's branch, by the framers of the constitution who knew firsthand the abuses of an all-powerful executive. nothing in this resolution changes or enhances that responsibility. rather than expending so much time, energy and taxpayer dollars and a display on this floor which provides the members of this body and the american people not a single ounce of new or enhanced benefit, we ought to be

concentrating on the real work. we ought to be moving legislation that creates jobs, good family wage jobs. there's no better way to create family wage jobs than investing in our nation's transportation and water resources infrastructure. these investments create and sustain millions of american jobs and generate billions of dollars of economic activity. according to the federal highway administration, for example, each $1 billion of federal investment creates or sustains 34,799 jobs and $6.2 billion of economic activity. moreover, these investments strengthen our ability to compete in the global marketplace. it is for these reasons, creating family wage jobs and strengthening our global competitiveness the presidents of the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio have linked arms in support of increased infrastructure investment.

yet in the first six weeks of this congress, the only action to date has been to wipe away the legacy of former republican chairman bud shuster. the budgetary firewalls that ensured we invest the revenues of highway trust fund and highway transit infrastructure. we have abolished the trust in the highway trust fund. in the last years, in the last congress, the house passed a federal aviation administration re-authorization bill that significantly increased airport investment, including runway, terminal and tarmac construction. the bill also authorized and accelerated the f.a.a.'s next generation air transportation system which will be an engine of economic growth. it will benefit airlines, workers, the traveling public and the f.a.a. over the long term, providing greater job security and opportunities for the nation's 567,000 airline workers and the 624,000 employees that work for companies that manufacture aircraft and components. we also passed a bill to help

cash-strapped states and communities invest almost $14 billion in wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines. in addition, the committee on a bipartisan basis approved a $500 billion surface transportation authorization act to significantly increase investment in highway transit and rail infrastructure. the bill would create and sustain an estimated six million jobs. finally, our committee on t.n.i. approved a water resources development bill to invest in our nation's water resources infrastructure and an economic development re-authorization bill that provides grants to economically distressed communities to help them build the necessary infrastructure to foster business investment and create jobs. mr. speaker, these are the bills that we should be debating on the floor today. these are the bills that make a difference. that make a difference in people's lives. we cannot wait. the construction season is upon us. and 1.9 million construction

workers are still out of work. they need a job. not another feel-good resolution from this republican majority. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution be yielded back and that h.res. 72 be adopted so we can move to consider legislation creating jobs. the speaker pro tempore: does the majority manager, the gentlelady from ohio, yield for the purpose of that unanimous consent request? mrs. schmidt: no. the speaker pro tempore: all right. mr. rahal: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: there are objections, therefore the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. mrs. schmidt: thank you, mr. speaker, before i begin my opening remarks i'd like to ask unanimous consent all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the house resolution 72 and at this point i would like to give three

minutes to the gentleman from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for how long? ms. schmidt [ the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: i thank you for giving us too time to call to the attention of america what has become a very serious problem and that is the explosion of rules and regulations and red tape that has taken place over these last several years at a very rapid pace. in 2005, a study by the small business administration has found that businesses spent approximate $1.1 trillion to comply with federal rules. confirming that, another study in 2009 by the competitive enterprise institute in 2009 said federal regulatory compliance had reached 1.2 trillion for businesses.

the annual outflow of rules meant nearly 60,000 rules, federal rules, have been issued just since 1995. regulatory agencies issued over 3,500 final rules in 2009. today's code of federal regulations contains an astounding 157,974 pages. they haven't designed a computer that can keep up with all that much less a human being. and the average family, according to another study by the s.b.a. in 2010 said that the cost of federal rules and regulations now cost the average family over $15,000 a year and that is increased by more than $4,000 just in the last five years. george mason university put out a report earlier this year which said that u.s. regulations, quote, are now

more onerous than those in other countries, particularly countries that offer similar property rights and infrastructure and that the united states risks losing investment capital and jobs. speaking more specifically about the transportation committee, according to a g.a.o. report, the typical transportation project now takes between nine and 19 years to plan, gain approval of and construct a new major federally funded highway project. let me give you two examples. several years ago when i chaired the aviation subcommittee, we had a hearing in which they said the newest runway at the atlanta airport at that time took 14 years from conception to completion, it took only 99 construction days, they were so happy to get all the final approvals, they did those in 33 24-hour days. it was all environmental rules and regulations and red tape. four years ago we had a hearing in the highways and transit subcommittee and they said a highway project in southern

california, a nine-mile project took 17 years from conception to completion, from 1990 until 2007. what these delays and these rules and regulations have done is driven up the cost. we now take on average three times as long and three times the cost of any other developed nation -- can i have 30 seconds more? mrs. schmidt: 30 seconds more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. duncan: it hurts the working people of america and destroys jobs and drives up places, all these rules and regulations and kills people when you delay for years winding and improving highways and making them safer. it's causing problems for everything that comes out of our committee. this is very important resolution and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia kin to serve? mr. shimkus: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from ohio.

>> i'd like -- ms. schmidt: i'd like to yield to mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. and mrs. america our economic growth is being stifled by 1,165,000 pages -- 1 million laws were never voted on by this body. there's a law of the land passed by the bureaucracy. we are to blame for this ourselves. as you can see from the chart, eventually we'll get it up here. the number of environmental laws and executive orders affect the construction industry has exploded since 1965. just take a look at this. here's where we are. now through at the -- now look at the things that have to go through there. all these things have to be met by the construction company. we just mentioned about the -- where did he go?

forget it. this is why it takes 17 years to build a highway. i want to keep in mind now, they keep hearing about creating jobs. you do not create a job. you allow a job to be created and regulations prohibit that. we see regulations every day that prohibit the growth of industry and jobs in this country. you mentioned, mr. ranking member, we can't even mine coal because of regulations. so let's start thinking about the money -- by the way, it costs $1,100,000 on the regulations never voted on. we can balance the budget in 13 years if we limit these regulations. the agencies keep going forth each day spending more money. their idea of success is having another law that's never been voted on. it gives an untold power to the

executive branch and this is the house of the people. and if we don't address this issue, shame on us. it's absolutely important. i just had a regulation proposed in alaska airlines. they had to get a permit by regulation and required to apply from the pipelines hazardous material safety administration before they could fly it. you know what it was? it was whipped cream. you can't fly whipped cream without a permit. another regulation from an agency. who thought that up? give me 30 seconds. the second one is now the newest one that's come out is a regulation by the e.p.a. under the oil spill liability clause that we now the e.p.a. is proposing a regulation to apply to dairy. because milwaukee has fat -- because milk has fat in it. they want to apply the oil spill regulation to a dairy. each cow costs $600 per life of the cow because they want to clean up milk.

the saying, you want to take no crying over spilled milk will cost you money. a regulation by an agency which has no sense at pull. wake up, mr. and mrs. america. let's prohibit the job creation in this country is what we ought to be talking about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia continues to reserve. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. mrs. schmidt: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schmidt: the american people spoke loud and clear and said they are tired of business as usual in washington and want less government intrusion and more freedom to prosper. this resolution begins that journey. it ensures freedom from government over regulation. you know, the buck stops here in this chamber.

the transportation and infrastructure committee alone. in this committee there are overregulations in every mode of transportation and in every area of infrastructure. specifically, our committee is going to look at a recent rule making by the national mediation board, arbitrary revocation of environmental permits by the e.p.a., new hours of service regulations for truckers by d.o.t., costly implementation of positive train control by d.o.t., the overly broad lithium battery rule, an extremely burdensome e.p.a. rule to comply with the cotton council versus the e.p.a. decision, e.p.a.'s regulation of leaded general aviation fuel and de-icing fluid, e.p.a.'s expanded regulation of storm war discharge and e.p.a.'s jurisdiction grab while they claim to implement the clean water act. an issue, a particular concern

to me and others are the actions taken over by the national mediation board. mr. speaker, under the current administration, unelected and unaccountable political appointees at the national mediation board have been bullying hard-working airline employees. as many of us know, delta airlines merged with northwest airlines in 2008. northwest employees were represented by unions. . traditionally, most delta workers were not. to complete the merger, delta workers have to decide whether to elect union representation or not. beginning in 2008, delta urged the unions to seek elections so that the issue could be resolved one way or another. the only way to start that process was for the employees who wanned a union to call for

an election. many of the merged delta working groups had already made their decision about representation. pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, meteorologists had all chosen and the mediation board affirmed those decisions. in august of 2009, everything was in place to allow votes to proceed for the remaining work groups. the mediation board, however, dragged its feet an did not act on these requests despite receiving and acting on three other requests from three other employee groups in other airlines in the intervening times. the reason became clear in september of twin hen the afl-cio asked the mediation board to change the rules in the middle they have merger. with no consultation or transparency, the mediation board rushed through new election rules which makes it much easier to join a union.

it only requires those -- the majority of those voting, not the majority of the work group, as required unthe railway labor act to decide whether employees would be represented of a wrune. this means if a work force of 20,000 people, only 1,000 people voted and 501 wanted a union, the entire 20,000 would be then represented. at the same time, the new rule, while making it easier for unions to gain a foothold among employees who might not want them, it didn't provide any mechanism for desert fiing the union. in other words, mediation board made it easier to get the union in and nearly impossible to get it kicked out. with these new rules proposed, the unions which represented northwest employees withdrew their request for votes while they waited for the new, easier rules to be finalized. the rule change was then finalized, they refiled for lexes urn the easier rule and

the mediation board promptly acted on those requests. so what the unions wanted and got was the chance to have their vote under the new, more favorable rules. it begs the question, mr. speaker, of how much the mediation board is mediating on behalf of workers as opposed to coordinating with special interests. the mediation board were reasonable, it would have allowed delta and northwest flight attendants and airport workers to decide wlorn they wanted union representation as soon as the unions filed. the nmb let three other airline elections go forward under the old rules put not delta. i would hope that the mediation board is watching out for workers' rights and not just union dues. nothing appears to have been done to enhance worker rights and protections. many feel their rights are being

trampled on by the very agency that's supposed to be looking out for them. despite the rule change, mr. speaker, when voters were eventually held -- when votes were eventually held late last year, a majority of the employees, in fact, voted not to join the union. the unions now have filed a complaint with the mediation board asserting that delta interfered with these elections and asking for new elections under, guess what, another new set of rules the national mediation board has not yet responded but there are concerns with how it will proceed based on past behavior. it should be up to the employees and no one else to decide wlorn they will have a union. not the company and certainly not the federal government. forcing employees to unionize through regulation is not why the national mediation board exists. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves.

the gentleman from west virginia continues to reserve. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. mrs. schmidt: at this time, i would like to give two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. fwibs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gibbs: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise today along with many of my newly elected colleagues as one of the members who came to washington to stop the red tape factory ofing arelations an help are businesses get back to creating jobs. in every community i visit in my district i have met a business owner who has spent a tremendous amount of money to comply with burdensome regulations or invested dollars that are tide up for months or years waiting for federal agencies to make the decisions held up by regulations on the permitting process. this is what i came to congress to stop. these rule makings create

uncertainty and cost as the details of the regulation take extensive periods of time to finalize. at a time when job creation is paramount to economic recovery, businesses are being forced to postpone decisions of hiring and expansion. a prime example of these harmful regulations is a company in my district that asked the e.p.a. in 2001 to make changes to the land disposal restrictions to ensure proper treatment and promote recycling. e.p.a. decided to take a different track and at their request, 10 years later that company is still waiting for an answer. 10 years later. this has to stop. another example, e.p.a. has overextending its authority over 404 permits by allowing a permit to be issued then years later, retroactively repealing the same permit. it leafs investors wondering whether they can commit funding to a project without the e.p.a.

farr by trarely revecking the permit. the e.p.a. has turned it from permit to perhaps. we need to make sure they're carrying out the intent of the law, not stifling economic and job recovery. i yield back the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon, our distinguished leading democrat on the subcommittee on highways and transit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: here we are trying to fill up space while america is in crisis. why do i say that? one of the most important an ongoing obligations of the united states congress is oversight. we don't need to pass a meaningless resolution to tell

committee it is do oversight. i've observed a number of the republican-led committees are already vigorously endwaged in oversight. i held dozens of hearings in oversight of the bureaucracy in trying -- and programs when i chaired the service committee. that's something we are not cone enough of, we should do more of but spening 10 hours on the floor instead of a few hours marking up bills that could create jobs in america is a waste of time and meaningless. now, we need, today, we had two commissions. they were named when the republicans controlled the house, the senate and the white house in the bush era. both of those commissions, republican-led, republican-authorized commissions came to the same conclusion. we are dramatically

underinvesting in our neigh's infrastructure. we are becoming third world. 150,000 bridges on the national highway system need substantial repair or replacement. 40% of the pavement on the national highway system causing blowouts, axles broken, accidents. it's a mess. talk to anybody. $60 billion back log on capital investment in our transit systems. you know what? when we make these investments, there's a great thing about it. we have strict buy america requirements. buy america requirements i intended to make more strict and i hope the republicans will now that they're in charge when we re-authorize the surface transportation jobs. instead of the stupid stimulus bill we passed if we had taken 1/5 of the money that went into that stimulus bill and invested it in surface stim lace we could

have created a couple more jobs a year, they aren't just job of people building the bridges and highways, they're the people who make the things we use to build the bridges and highways, the steel industry, the people who make the tires for the buses or the engines for the buses or the street cars we make in oregon again, made in america for the first time in 70 years. huge multiplier effect. what they said is the amount of money we're currently investing won't keep the eisenhower system up. now the republicans are refusing to look at enhanced investment in transportation and infrastructure and we haven't begun talking about authorizing that. we're wasting billions of gallons of fuel and people's time in the air because we don't have an adequate aviation system in terms of air traffic control and the tools our controllers knee. they're focused on the controllers, the controllers earn too much money. they're working with 1950's equipment. you can't get vacuum tubes anymore. let's focus on the things people need to do the job more

efficiently to get our planes where they're going as safely as we do today and more efficiently and stop the congestion in the skies. get the jobs out of kruk. let's talk about those things. today the democrats introduced a bill, h.r. 11, to authorize more buy america bonds. now this doesn't cost the federal government anything in the end. what we're trying to do is help the local jurisdictions, the states and others who are strapped now, their bonding authority is tapped out or they cone have good credit because of other problems, to do needed projects and give it to them at an interest rate they can afford. yeah, there's a little subsidy in the interest rate but guess what, with the jobs we generate, we'll get more than that back in the taxes. the best way to deal with the deficits in the country would be to put people back to work. 30% to 40% of our problems could be dealt with if we had full

employment. but no, the republicans want to pretend their care about things, we'll start to do something new, oversight. you're already thored to do oversight an don't pretepid you aren't and don't pretend this meanings will resolution will make any difference. wry why are we wasting this time? because we're putting on a show. you're in charge, you can put on a show whenever you want. someday you're going to come to account firt. you can pretend this is about jobs, what it's about is your day in, day out agenda, which is big business. this isn't about independent truck drivers struggling to make a living. may i have an additional three minutes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reek thesed for three minutes. mr. defazio: i'm with you on that stuff. let's get rid of that junk. today i had people in my office

who i helped to get some money to reopen a rail line that was closed by some hedge fund in my district that bought it up and they're being hung up on, you know, getting a federal grant, which i helped them get, one of those horrible earmarks we get here to further enhance that short rile line by some paperwork at fish and wildlife. it happens that the guy who is head -- the regional guy from the fedsfish fish and wildlife was there in my office. i put them together, they solved the problem in a couple of minutes. but it shouldn't have happened. we can streamline the paperwork and take care of those things. if you want to help real people, i'm with you. if this is yet another ruse to engage in some sort of political pursuit of the administration, you know, or it's just something else to help your big businessall lies or something else to coddle wall street, get rid of those burdensome regular lagses on wall street, they can

regulate themselves. look what a great job they did other the last 0 years regulating themselves. they did traiter -- crater the u.s. economy and the world economy and cost a few million people their jobs but they would never do anything to jeopardize our country. those burdensome regulations on wall street, the burdensome regulations on b.p. how can we have burdensome regulations on oil companies. they'll drill safely anywhere and everywhere. we have crappy regulation, let's fix that. but we need regulation to avoid abuses. don't pretend that we don't. that big business won't choose to abuse the privilege if we don't regulate them properly and smartly. do you want to have an aviation industry that's more deregulated? no one would fly a plane that isn't safe, they wouldn't cut corners. whoops, that's already happened

a few times in history, in the deregulatory bing in the reagan years. you want to focus on meaningless, bothersome regulations, things that impede working people, small businesses, other people use our transportation system, general aviation pilots, airlines, great. but if it's just another horter to thing or another -- hortator thing or a gift to your big businessall lies forget about it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. schmidt: can i inquire how much time each side has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 13 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from west virginia vs seven minutes. the gentlelady from ohio. 17 minutes. you have 17. ms. is submit -- mrs. schmidt: we have 15 and they have 17? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mrs. schmidt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from

york, -- from new york, mr. hanna. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hanna: i rise in support of this bill. one example of an unnecessary proposed rule is the change in hours of service rule being considered by the department of transportation, it would have a detrimental effect on the condition and impact on productivity and the economy. . >> under the rule of number of fatal accidents involving large trucks declined by more than 1/3. the accidents are now at the lowest level in history. we are successfully balancing safety and productivity and this current rule works. the proposed rule would put additional trucks on the road to deliver the same quantity of goods and puts more drivers at risk, increases congestion, pollution and will result in higher final product costs. not to mention, the burden this

would place on the trucking industry, particularly small business truckers, some of whom would be forced out of business. furthermore, the proposed rules are so complex and restrictive, compliance and enforcement would become narrowly impossible. why would we place a rule that has served us well? why would we replace a rule that's served us well, particularly when the proposed change is hardly practical and would negatively impact productivity and our ability to compete? in the least, this is a reduntant and unnecessary process and at worst is designed to appease a narrow group of special interests. on two prior occasions, the federal motor carrier safety administration estimated that this change to the rules would cost the u.s. economy $2.2 billion. and that number includes the safety benefits. somehow and for some reason the federal motor carriers safety administration then changed its

methodology for estimating both the cost and the benefits of this new proposed rule. this led to a statistically positive benefit cost ratio. strangely, however, the agency's own analysis still demonstrates the estimated benefit of retaining the current rule exceeds the estimated benefits of the proposed rule. changing this rule is both unnecessary and wasteful on the part of the federal government and small businesses and large businesses everywhere. thank you and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahal: mr. speaker i yield two minutes to a valued men of our administration on infrastructure, the gentlelady from hawaii. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: the legislation is constructs them to do the job

they already do, construct laws passed by congress. i believe it is a component of successfully tackling the challenges we face as a nation. while i have no objection to this resolution, i question why we need to spend 9 1/2 hours debating what we should all unanimously agree on. mr. speaker, spending this much time on this resolution is like making sure we finish chewing our gum before we start walking. when just a few months ago we were doing both at the same time. take the american recovery and reinvestment act. for example, this legislation was passed as an unprecedented response to the most severe economic crisis our nation has faced since the great depression. we know that there was a lot of taxpayer money involved in this legislation and that's why we include reporting requirements for the recipients and diligent committee oversight. because of these measures, i

know that approximate $1.5 billion was allocated to hawaii. since 2009, this money has helped us save or create 13,000 full-time equivalent jobs in hawaii. i also know that hawaii received approximate $156 million for highway and water infrastructure improvements. these funds are helping to build hawaii's infrastructure for the future right now. for example, when completed, the wastewater treatment project on the island of kaui will double the existing plant and will allow the county to take advantage of the volovolcainc energy. it will not have to rely on water they need for other purposes besides irrigation. altogether this will allow for expanded development in the area which will lead to more

new businesses and importantly, more new jobs. mr. speaker, we need to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time again as the recovery act demonstrates when we do, we can make a positive difference in the lives of our constituents, create jobs and face the challenges together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from ohio. mrs. schmidt: i wish to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington state, ms. herrera butler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. herrera butler: the reason i'm rising in support of this resolution and the reason it's so important we debate the job killing costs of regulations is because we're at an all time high in our neck of the woods. we're at double-digit unemployment and have been doing it in every single county of our district for weeks. and the other side of the aisle say this is simple, this is kids stuff. if this is kids stuff, why are

we dealing with it today at the beginning of the congress. why wasn't it dealt with last congress? i'll tell you why, because we need to make changes. we need to tell these agencies, back off of small businesses. back off of families. back off of our cities. operate within the law. don't make your own laws. last year, the e.p.a. promise you will indicated 2928 new rules last year alone, 928 new rules. you know, when i have my construction workers who are out of work right now come to me and say we've got these storm water regulations and they are requiring us for go back to prelewis and clark days, we don't even know what that looks like. we have these regulations handed down to us from the feds and we can't hire new workers, we can't build new businesses, we can't even redevelop without cutting our arms off. when it comes to costs. it needs to change. i'm all for commonsense solution oriented regulations. i want to protect our environment. i want to protect our way of

life. but business and our economy are not mutually exclusive with our environment. and we're simply saying and we're taking the time today to say that the e.p.a. and other federal agencies who have overstepped their bounds need to check themselves, or we're going to have this debate. so i invite any colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we want to create jobs. we want america to be working again. i have friends and family out of work in southwest washington and they want to work. but when their small employer says, i'm sorry, i've got to put new money into this infrastructure piece to retrofit it to bring it up to speed with this new regulation, i can't hire you, or i can't -- i need to minimize your hours so there is work to be done and with that i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia continues to reserve? the gentlelady from ohio. mrs. schmidt: mr. speaker, i now would like to yield two minutes to the good gentleman from indiana, mr. bucshon.-

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bucshon: we have a resolution that will make the 112th congress get the job done. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of resolution 72. and i'm speaking about the egregious overregulation by the current administration. one specific instance i would like to bring up to the floor occurred with number one, surface mines in southern west virginia. i know it's not uncommon for the e.p.a. to veto mine permits but this is the first time in history that the e.p.a. has vetoed mining permits after it's been issued and placed into action. a portion of the clean water act referenced was section 404, requirement for commercial investment in several industries including mining and transportation.

i'm the son after coal miner who worked in an underground coal mine for 37 years and now i'm representing southwestern indiana, a district rich in coal reserves and a state, the state of indiana that 95% of our electrical energy comes from coal. every coal mine in indiana except for one in my district. i find it very troubling that the e.p.a. would veto a mining permit after it had been issued by the corps of engineers and put into operation by the mining company. the mining company had invested $250 million and was going to bring good jobs to southern west virginia. i'm troubled by this overstepping by the e.p.a. because i'm fearful that all mining companies going through the permitting process in my district are going to be at risk even if they've been granted a permit. i'm also fearful for all the industries that require section 404 permits could have theirs retroactively vetoed and would

waste private capital investment and hurt job creation. with our nation's labor force participation rate at a 26-year low, we must end the overregulation and stop the atrocious overreaching by government agencies. we need jobs in america. and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia continues to reserve. the gentlelady from ohio. mrs. schmidt: mr. speaker, at this time i believe i have my last witness and will -- mr. speaker, the good gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. manzullo: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a unique opportunity today to begin the long process of addressing the hidden tax burdensome regulations. these are the regulations that choke small businesses, hinder u.s. manufacturers and obstruct job creation. last year alone, the federal government created 43 major new rules that cost our economy

approximate $28 billion. and my friends on the other side of the aisle wonder why jobs are going overseas. by directing committees to review and purge outdated and unproductive regulations from the books, this resolution provides much-needed oversight to regulatory system that is spiraling out of control. as the co-hair of -- as the co-chair of the house manufacturing caucus, i hear almost every day from manufacture ares and other small businesses that are being crushed by unnecessary regulations which constrict job growth and yet don't make us any safer, any healthier, or any more secure. our country needs a sensible and economically competitive regulatory policy. we need to give the office of advocacy of the small business administration a stronger voice within the executive branch to stop or amend bad regulations before they become finalized.

we also need to pass the rains act that will require congress to have the final say op major regulations before they take effect to ensure that they are following congressional intent. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 72 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahal: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from ohio. mrs. schmidt: mr. speaker, if the gentleman from west virginia is willing to yield back his time i am and i want to say i look forward to working with the gentleman from west virginia and all in this house to make our america a better place to live, work and raise a family. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: i thank the speaker.

mr. speaker, i commend my colleague from texas, mr. sessions, and speaker boehner, leader cantor, and the house leadership for bringing this important resolution forward. this resolution represents the opening battle in a fight against the continued expansion and overreach of the regulatory state. that state being the federal government. we have just gone through four years of a very liberal congress and two years of a very liberal administration. and working hand to hand they have put past massive new laws that expanded government and weakened personal freedom. the 10th amendment says that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are left to the states and the people. but from health care to financial services to other sectors of the economy, congress

has ceded its constitutional responsibility to unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats. two years ago president obama reminded us that elections matter when he said, i won. well, mr. speaker, in november the american people won in doing so they made it clear to anyone listening that they objected to the direction that our country has taken. they object to the limitations imposed on our freedom, on our choices, on our ability to create jobs. this is not new. in the past as well as in the current administration, liberal presidents who could not achieve their goals by the consent of the people have resorted to regulatory fiat to give their most extreme supporters what they want. under these regulatory regimes,

the power of congress and the people has been reduced to notice and comment. a notice and comment period in which they can only state their objections. however it's becoming increasingly apparent to the american people these comments are regularly ignored by the regulators. the expansion of the regulatory state continues to concentrate power in the executive branch and to marginalize representative government with congressionally enacted legislation being decreed by regulatorers who are insulated from the popular vote. fortunately this congress is committed to doing something about unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory burdens and the resolution we're debating today is a great start. under this resolution 10 house committees, including the financial services committee, will review pending and existing

regulations to determine their impact on our nation's economy, on its ability to create jobs and, most importantly, our own personal freedoms. this review comes not a moment too soon. our job creators struggle under a seemingly endless and constant flurry of mandates pushed out by the administration and initiated under the former majority in congress. nothing better illustrates the rule of unelected -- the rule of the unelected in the regulatory state than the dodd-frank act. as a result of this one massive piece of legislation passed in the last congress there will be a tsunami of 300 new washington rules and regulations. the burden of these regulations will almost certainly limit access to credit for small businesses and consumers. they will divert private sector resources that should go to expanding businesses and creating jobs. and they will also limit the

honors and the consumers of those firms from making their own choices and decisions. the financial services committee has heard testimony from many witnesses about the harmful impact of the act. one of them, the car guile corporation, alone told us that the act's requirements on derivatives would cost the company $1 billion. funds that otherwise would be deployed for the construction of a new plant in kansas city, a plant that would create thousands of jobs and put americans back to work. that's only one example of the uncertainty our economy faces due to these new washington regulations. it shows how the expanded regulatory state too often forces u.s. companies to divert resources and time away from job creation and investment and instead toward obeying the ever-growing demands of a bigger

and more intrusive government. in a hearing in my committee only this morning there was bipartisan agreement and no opposition to a provision in our oversight plan offered by the gentleman, mr. westmoreland from georgia, requiring a review of the mixed messages in which we hear washington regulators calling for increased lending by banks, but examiners in the field micromanaging bank activities and stifling lending. these conflicting signals are creating uncertainty that prevent banks from lending to small businesses and in extreme cases they have cost the fail -- caused the failure of those very banks. this uncertainty in term impedes economic growth and costs jobs. let me conclude by saying this congress was elected to limit the scope of the federal government, not to expand it. our forefathers who fashioned the 10th amendment would be pleased with our debate and our efforts today.

thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, as ranking member of the subcommittee on capital markets and government-sponsored enterprises, i am extremely concerned about the impact of the republicans' continuing resolution on the ability of the securities and exchange commission, that is the s.e.c., to police our capital markets, thereby preventing another financial crisis. ms. waters: to be clear, the republican continuing resolution with its $100 billion in proposed cuts is an assault on job creation, vulnerable populations and our communities. however, it is also an assault on our financial markets. if the securities and exchange

commission is level funded or funded at 2008 levels, we risk defunding the main agency with the oversight over risky financial products that started the 2008 financial crisis. the s.e.c. is supposed to be our wall street cop. it is supposed to make sure that the brokerage firms are obeying the law. it is supposed to protect the investors, it is supposed to make sure that those people who work every day, having their money invested by institutional investments like the pension funds, are not losing their investments and their 401-k's. let's talk about what happened in 2008. in 2008 our financial markets collapsed. in 2008 it was clear that the s.e.c. didn't have the tools or the resources it needed to monitor or police those markets. so frankly i don't understand why republicans would want to

underfund the s.e.c. with the same amount of funding it received in a year that it lacked the resources to monitor financial markets that were spinning out of control. from 2005 to 2007, during the buildup to the crisis, that imploded in 2008, the s.e.c. lost 10% of its staff. in addition, from 2005 to 2009, the s.e.c.'s investments in information technology declined by 50%. during this time period trading volumes doubled. the number of investment advisors has increased by 50% and the funds they manage have increased 55% to $33 trillion. let's put these numbers into perspective. the s.e.c.'s 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities including 11,450

investment advisors, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker dealers and more than 10,000 public companies. furthermore, these staff police companies that -- these staff police companies that trade on average $8 -- 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day. the dodd-frank act will prevent the next crisis by authorizing the s.e.c. to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisors and broker dealers and rein in credit rating agencies. in order to do this, the s.e.c. needs additional funding. the securities and exchange commission that is our wall street cop to protect us all needs additional funding. unfortunately house republicans don't want the s.e.c. to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. why?

funding year 2008 levels, the s.e.c. would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its i.t. budget down to $86 million, its lowest level of i.t. spending since 2003. at this level the s.e.c. would not be able to implement the new systems it needs to protect the nation's securities markets. we have all said to the public in so many ways and certainly through dodd-frank that we're going to change the way the s.e.c. has not been working. we're going to make sure we have some protection for consumers and investors. yet we know it can be -- can't be done without the resources, without the money. you can tell where your priorities are based on where you put your funding. this attack on the s.e.c. is more disturbing because the agency's funding will be desssiff-neutral. beginning in fiscal year 2014,

fees collected by the s.e.c. will match its congressional appropriation. the critical role that the s.e.c. plays in our nation's financial markets is precisely why wall street, the very entity that the s.e.c. regulates, is asking for congress to fully fund this agency. according to a february 7 article in "the new york times," 41 prominent securities lawyers and professionals have already written to congress to ask for full funding for the agency. why do we have to beg for funding for s.e.c. if we're truly about the business of protecting our consumers? mr. speaker, the s.e.c. needs a sufficient level of funding. if wall street's cop on the beat is unavailable we risk another financial crisis and loss of more jobs. i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. who seeks time? the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize

the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito. for three minutes. i'm sorry, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. and -- mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you for yielding me the time. thank you for your leadership as we work toward better solutions for a modernized financial regulatory structure. last year the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act was signed into law. today we are realizing the overarching effects such regulation will be have on our economy and this is just begun. onerous new regulations and the creation of an entirely new agency with vast influence over consumer choice will only impede our recovery. instead of expanding the scope of government, we need efficient and effective regulatory oversight to support the private sector which will drive our economy's recovery. i have deep concerns about what this new law will mean for employment as do many of my

constituents. the president of summit community banks testified before our committee, the bank is headquartered in my district, and he testified just this month about the affects of the new rules and regulations enacted under the dodd-frank financial reform legislation of small institutions. even those small -- though small institutions are supposedly carved out of this law, he expressed serious concerns about his institution's ability to compete in this new regulatory regime. banks who didn't take excessive risks or use exotic financial products are going to see higher compliance costs, limited access to capital anding aretory pressures on lending issues -- and regulatory pressures on lending issues, all of which hurt our ability and his ability to serve the community. while it is necessary to regulate those who acted irresponsibly, it is important that the regulations are targeted and not broad and burdensome. at a time when we should be creating economic certainty in our markets, we are seeing the unintended consequences of this law. according to mr. mehdi, new standards are being applied

without banks having a clear understanding of where they are. this will only discourage investment and create job loss. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to mr. perlmutter of colorado three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields three minutes to the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: and i thank the gentlelady, mr. speaker. i come after a couple of members of the financial services committee with whom i like to work and i admire, but i got to say, what's being proposed here today is that america forgets what happened on wall street two years ago, four years ago, six years ago. it's a request to have collective amnesia and forget that giant ponzi schemes were perpetrated on hundreds of

thousands of people, pension funds, firefighter funds, people all across this country. and let's just start with one guy named madoff. the reason you have regulations, the reason you want to regular -- want a regulatory body is to stop crooks like bernie madoff. and under the republican watch it was, let's not regulate, let's not enforce regulations, let's allow the market to regulate and police itself and then we have a guy like bernie madoff. i heard mrs. capito or mr. bachus talk about a company that because of regulations won't invest a billion dollars. well, regulations and the lack of regulations under the bush administration cost investors $65 billion in the madoff ponzi scheme alone. . forget about stanford and the

other ones where these bandits were running rampant. our economy expects regulation. it requires regulation so people aren't defrauded and looted. it's this kind of oversight where we make sure the regulators are doing their job to look out for crooks who are stealing people's money. that's their job. and the thing that threw this country into a tailspin was the wall street excesses and the rampage that these ponzi schemes artists put on america. and my friends on the republican side of the aisle want us to forget that. they want to say let's not have any regulation. we have too much regulation. well, that lack of regulation almost killed this country's economy. millions of jobs lost. we don't hear anything from the republicans about let's put

people back to work. let's have a create jobs. it's about wait a second, we've got to get rid of these regulations they did not enforce when they were in power causing this country to lose billions of dollars and millions of jobs. so we all agree that there should be oversight of the executive branch. no if's, and's or but's about it. but to blame all of the ills of this country on regulations -- if i could ask the gentlelady from california for one more minute. ms. waters: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. perlmutter: the regulations are important especially in an arena where huge amounts of money are being transferred. billions of dollars were stolen from americas. we have regulations in place and we need those regulations enforced. and if the republican party thinks that these things are in excess, they should go talk to

some of the victims of those giant ponzi schemes that occurred under their watch. with that i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from alabama. mr. back just: at this time i'd like to -- mr. bachus: at this time i'd like to recognize mrs. biggert, the chairman of the house subcommittee for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentlelady from yielding. mr. speaker, government burdens are the number one concern that employers in my district share with me every time i visit a small business or talk with local entrepreneurs. among all the economic hurdles we face, federal demands clearly play a leading role in driving the uncertainty that has frozen our job market and it's no wonder over the last few years, contrary to what the gentleman from colorado talked about congress has enacted laws

regulating finance and more. as a result employers are facing new pages of thousands of regulations, mandates and paperwork nightmares. for example, the financial overhaul will result in an estimated 330 new rule makings that has the potential to raise the cost of credit, impede private investment and curtail innovation in the financial sector. as a result, the small business administration estimates that america's most active job creators, small businesses are the hardest hit by federal regulations. those with 20 or fewer employees pay an astounding $10,585 per year per employee to comply with federal regulations. it's time to go line by line to the federal rule book. let's exam what works, throw out what doesn't and make sure we aren't imposing unfair and unnecessary burdens on job creators. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 72 and i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from new york three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> i join her and my other colleagues in speaking out in strong protest to the projected cuts they are pushing to the securities exchange commission. mrs. maloney: the watchdog agency looking to find the corruption, abuse, and to protect the investors and to protect our financial community. and our republican colleagues have proposed that the s.e.c.'s budget should be cut back to 2008 levels but i can hardly imagine they can be pleased at the level of oversight that was

performed by the s.e.c. in 2008. the year the economy cratered, the year that massive abuses such as the may dolph scandal came to light and other abuses. we should not be scaling back the staff and oversight capable of the s.e.c. but adding to it so they can do a better job of protecting investors and the american taxpayer. according to the s.e.c.'s inspector general, the republican proposal would force the agency to cut over 600 staff members, over 600. now, we know that the s.e.c. has 60 studies that they have to come out with, hundreds of rules, and they are clamoring for more staff to meet the mandates of this congress and

of the regulatory reform bill that has been written to save taxpayers from having to bail out too big to fail and successes and mismanagement in the financial industry. just as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling for more accountability, they would cripple one of the key agencies that holds people in a key sector accountable. the s.e.c.'s budget for all of 2010 is equal to just a small fraction of the bonus pool for just one major firm in the financial sector. so let's look at the facts here. the total loss of household wealth as a result of the great recession has been estimated to be approximate $14 trillion.

$14 trillion. it was a financial disaster that did not have to happen. there was a movement on the republican aisle to roll back regulation. there was a lack of adequate oversight, and the lack of oversight and regulation were major contributing factors to this financial disaster. so the republicans new proposal to cut the badly needed oversight of our financial system brings to meend the old american saying, they are being pennywise and pound-foolish with the economy of our great country. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time i recognize a senior member of the financial services committee, the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? mr. back just: for three

minutes. mr. bachus: for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. royce: it was interesting to note it was the republicans who attempted to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. it was the republicans attempting to bring regulation against those government sponsored enterprises because the federal reserve had approached us and told us that we faced a systemic economic consequence that might bring down not only the housing sector but the other sectors of the economy. and who was it that pushed for the zero down payment loans? who was it that pushed for the arbitrage over at fannie and freddie? the s.e.c. has always had the ability to prosecute securities fraud. but what happened under may dove -- under maid off -- under

madoff for 18 years and 20 years under president clinton and president bush is you had an inability on the part of the young lawyers at the s.e.c. to fund that fraud. and this is something i and others have pushed for. one of the things we tried to do during the dodd-frank bill was to get a reform of the culture over at the s.e.c. why? because that overlawyered institution was incapability of even understanding what madoff and others had done with these ponzi schemes. and when we tried to push those reforms through, what did we get out of it on the other side of the aisle? they agreed to a study. a study of the s.e.c. culture. now, in the meantime we have 3,800 people over at the s.e.c. at a time when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit, we're going to have to have haircuts. we cannot ramp up everybody's salary around here, we can't give promotions to everybody

all the time. everybody's going to have to take a little bit of the cut in order for us to get this budget back into balance. and i can share with you a couple other tho way in which w approached this because we've magnified too big to fail with what we've done with dodd-frank. ask any economist about some of the consequences of this legislation. we've reduced the cost of capital for the largest institutions at the expense of their community bank competitors or their credit union competitors. it is the large institutions that have a 100 basis point, a 1% interest point advantage now in the market because now we have made them too big to fail under this legislation. if we don't reform this, if we don't change our system in a way in which we get some commonsense regulations out there, it's not as if we're not competing around the world, think for a minute about what's

happening in germany. think about what's happening in britain and brazil and singapore. they are competing against us because of the anti-business environment we have created. not only with -- in terms of regulations that don't make sense many times, but i appreciate the opportunity to point this out. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much mr. speaker,. i yield to the gentleman from texas three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the time. 2 has been said the s.e.c. has 3,800 employees and this is correct, it does have 3,800 employees but it also has to be said that they oversee 35,000 entities. mr. green: it also has to be

noticed they police 4,450 advisors. it must also be said they have to monitor 7,600 mutual funds. they have 5,000 broker-dealers they have to keep an eye on and they also have 10,000-plus companies that very have to monitor. yes, 3,800 employees but they are overworked already and they are overwhelmed with what they have to do. i might note, also, if we go back to the 2008 levels, we're talking about over $200 million in cuts to the s.e.c. the s.e.c. needs help, not hurt. this piece of legislation, if it is implemented to its fullest thought -- intent will indeed hurt the s.e.c. let's talk for just a second who the s.e.c. employees actually are. these are the first responders to possible financial disasters. they are the ones who have to catch the madoffs of the world,

as has been indicated. and i must add, also, it was under the 2008 levels madoff was able to make off with $80 billion with his ponzi scheme. we need to protect the s.e.c. let's make sure that we don't cut jobs in an effort to save the economy and these are jobs that are actually needed. let's not just cut any jobs, let's make sure we protect the jobs that are going to help protect the financial security of the united states of america and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. >> mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, our subcommittee chairman of the international policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. >> mr. side hasn't forgot what went on. we haven't forgot about madoff. but the problem is, as some people have forgot in 1998, a whistle blower first went to the s.e.c. on madoff and they

did nothing, repeatedly individuals went to the s.e.c. on madoff and did nothing. we can pass all the regulations through dodd-frank we want to pass. madoff went to jail because he was a criminal. he violated the law and you don't need 20 laws in place to punish a person for one act. we did it. dodd-frank goes far beyond that. it's 243 new regulations on the pipeline, 243. it's scary. now, the s.e.c. has failed in many ways. . many heard me talk about market to market principals. that means when the lender makes a loan they have to mark the value on their books of what the product is worth at current market value. for example, if five years ago a piece of property is worth $20 million they lend $15 million. today it's worth only $12 million, well the s.e.c. says we should lend no more than $8

million. now the loan is performing, mean the property is current on its payments. what the lender is required to do based on s.e.c. requirements, because federal regulators have no control over that, because the s.e.c. sets the requirements, they can either set a $7 million set aside because the loan is overvalued based on the books or they can say to the individual, you owe us $7 million to reinstate the loan. in this economy most people don't have the $7 million. had we modified market to market standards and looked at loans on a realistic fortune principles in the future, most of these lenders today would be in business and many people would not have lost their loans and their product that they had under that loan. we have done nothing to the s.e.c. in fact, the first time i asked the s.e.c. chairwoman in a hearing and the question was four minutes long regarding market to market principles she looked at me and said, i'll get back to you on that, congressman. nothing to date has happened. so look at the s.e.c. and say they're saints, they're doing

their job and protecting the citizenry and the individuals out there, i can't say that. i would like to see these individuals held accountable for what they did not do. in 1998 had they moved with madoff and done what they should have done or in 2000 to 2002, a lot of investors would have more money than they have today but they did not. just as our nation's trying to recover, it seems like the obama administration is doing nothing but making it harder for american businesses and i see i'm out of time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield to another member of the financial services committee from north carolina, mr. miller. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've been trying to figure out if the american people who may be watching this and even my colleagues here on the floor may even under what this debate is

about. mr. watt: the original resolution talks about inventorying and looking at and evaluating regulations. i think that's a substitute for trying to figure out how to cut back on various agencies and their authority and what they're doing and we don't want to lose sight of that. i think that's an honorable objective. the problem is that this debate has wandered off into a discussion about whether we effectively did what the s.e.c. effectively did what it was supposed to do with with respect to bernie madoff. and when i hear my colleague, mr. miller, say, well, this is about holding the s.e.c. accountable for what they did not do, i don't know how you

hold the s.e.c. accountable for what they did not do by increasing -- by decreasing their ability to regulate an industry and by decreasing their budget. those two things don't compute with me. i just -- i'm having a big problem internalizing this. you have an agency here that has a $1 billion annual budget. it has responsibility for policing and monitoring all of the things that mr. green talked about in his debate but on a gross level, $8.5 billion, billion shares of stock transferred every day.

so $1 billion a year we're supposed to monitor and control $8.5 billion shares -- 8.5 billion shares a day transferred and transacted. and here we are talking about well, let's take authority from the s.e.c. and let's take money away from the s.e.c. to do what it's supposed to do. friends, that does not compute. and the american people know that it does not compute. now, the underlying reling resolution says that -- resolution says that you're supposed to find ways to identify how these regulations impact and limit access to credit and capital. well, imagine what's going to

happen with investors in this country if we don't regulate the -- the s.e.c. isn't available to regulate the transactions. 8.5 billion transactions a day. and you're going to say, ok, we want your capital but we're not going to do anything to protect you as an investor. we're going to let bernie madoff do whatever he wants to do because we're getting ready to limit the number of regulations the s.e.c. can impose on bernie madoff and we're getting ready to limit their budget, to enforce the regulations that they have. friends, that does not compute. it does not compute with members of this house and i will tell

you, it will not compute with the american public. this is a simple debate. do you allow the private sector to do whatever they want to, whenever they want to in whatever circumstances they want to so that we can be back in another economic chaos like we had for the last two or three years? or do we have some reasonable regulations and reasonably fund the ability of the regulators to enforce those regulations? that's what this debate is about. i don't know what mr. miller was talking about. i don't know dish don't now how this relates to -- i don't know how this relates to fannie mae and freddie mac. it doesn't. everything in our committee seems to relate to fannie and freddie. but this is about how we're going to regulate these stock transactions and if you reduce that budget and reduce their ability to regulate, i guarantee

you we will be out of control. it does not compute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished freshman from ohio, mr. signers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: our focus on congress should be on job creation. i'd like to refocus this debate a little bit because i support a pretty simple proposition when it comes to regulation and that's the benefits of regulation should exceed the costs. last week in wortington, ohio, i heard from over 100 small business owners at a local chamber of commerce. they're worried about uncertainty, they're worried about limited transparency in this current regulatory environment, and it causes them to slow down on job creation and it stifles our economy. over the past couple of weeks the house committees have had

hearings on jobs including the financial services committee that talked about job growth. we discussed the need to compare the benefits of the costs of regulation to those benefits, even with the independent agencies. experts suggested that we review overly burdensome and duplicative regulation which hurts access to capital and job growth. i believe the office of management and budget should be required to analyze the tradeoffs between proposed regulations and what they have on affecting job creation, economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. we must ensure that our new federal regulations don't interrupt consumers' act to obtain credit or prevent small businesses from adding jobs or hindering economic growth. i yield back the balance of my time.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from new york who serves also on the financial services committee three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentlelady from california. you know, i've been listening to debate in my office and agree with my colleague mel watt. sometimes we get confused, i think, and maybe if we can just break this down to the common demom nater. i was thinking, i used to be a former prosecutor. i asked the following question, that if a burglar broke into your house and steals your life savings, do you then go to the police department and ask the police department to have the investigator or somewhere there so you can try and find out who did it or put in measures to prevent it from happening again, because you're asking them to look to see, how did they break into your house, what they did, how can you fix it? mr. meeks: or do you say, we don't need a police department? forget having the police

department. so that other people's homes can be broken into also. that's really what we're talking about here. in the aftermath of the largest crisis of our lifetimes, a crisis that not only wiped out trillions of dollars in investment and savings, but led to the exposure, you know, we talked about the ponzi schemes and crimes perpetuated against the american people, it is imperative that we don't handcuff the people who can look and prevent the measures and make sure that we don't have this catastrophe again. the amount of money that the s.e.c. and the cftc are requesting, $160 million, is the last thing that we spent a day in controlling the marketplaces in baghdad orca bull. now, we all agree, and this argument comes in, everybody knows that government needs to tighten its belt. but end discriminant cutting across the board is not only observed, it's dangerous. reducing funding for the s.e.c.

and the cftc is irresponsible and will lead to additional madoffs in the future. and i think that we owe the american people much more than that. what we're simply talking about here is making sure that those individuals whose responsibility it is to make sure that we don't get in this predicament again, that people don't lose their life savings, have the resources that are necessary to do it. that's what we're talking about. and so, i would urge that we not cut but give the amount of money that is requested about by the s.e.c. and the cftc because i think that's what the american people would expect of us as being members of the people's house. taking care of them and making sure that their life savings are protected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield five minutes to the fellow distinguished freshman from illinois, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm a small business owner. i own and operate a business, i employ just under 100 people. for me that's 100 families. one of the reasons that i'm here today is that i decided that the government was making it harder and harder for me to put the key in the door and open up my business each and every day. and it should be quite the opposite. we need regulation. i'm going to agree with my colleagues on the other side, we need regulation, but it has to be smart regulation. h.r. 72 finally gives the american public, employees, consumers, businesses and families a bright light at the end of what is a very dark and long regulatory tunnel. and while we agree that many regulations are there to safeguard the american public, this resolution will simply require that house committees review these government regulations. while doing so each committee will identify each regulations'

effects on jobs and economic growth. and more specifically, to ask certain set of fundamental requests. including, will the proposed regulation impede private sector job creation? that is the number one goal right now, to try and create jobs. will the proposed regulation discourage innovation? and the entrepreneurial spirit? will the proposed regulation harm economic growth and investment? will it harm america's global competitiveness? will the proposed regulation limit access to credit and to capital? will it create economic uncertainty? unfortunately for years many in the congress and regulators have simply ignored these questions with devastating results for job creation. mr. speaker, in our global marketplace, we must ask, analyze and debate the questions contained in this resolution if

we are serious about creating an environment where private sector jobs are created. unfortunately in the past we had multiple massive bills with thousands of pages of legislative text, writ and jammed through the congress, without meaningful debate, without transparency and without any opportunity for most members to actually read and to analyze the mountain of legislation, creating countless regulations, rules, studies and commissions. . how can we expect businesses to provide research and new marketing programs, maintaining existing jobs and new initiatives when our regulations are paralyzing businesses and entrepreneurs with tremendous amount of uncertainty? i hear back in our district all the time from those that are trying to create jobs, a good example of the regulatory

environment in the small business in the 10th district in illinois, learning resources, whose sole mission is to provide better resources for students and teachers to learn more easily. learning resources has suffered along with its current employees, i would argue potential employees and their families because of undue burdensome regulations. their regulatory compliance costs have increased 10 times, 1,000% in just the last five years. even though the company has had a safe -- has not had any safety issues or problems during that time or the years prior to. with unduly burdensome regulations, jobs have been lost, business expansion opportunities have been cut short, employee benefits have been shaved. and consumer prices have been artificially inflated. the small business administration estimates a total regulatory compliance costs imposed on american businesses amounts to over

$1.75 trillion each and every year. this is nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected each year. this takes away from productive investment and growth. we live, mr. speaker, in a global marketplace. where businesses and capital are mobile, where businesses and jobs gravitate to where they are most welcome. where customers can easily choose to buy goods and services from businesses based anywhere in the world. we want those businesses and those jobs here in the united states. we want businesses to innovate. we want them to make sure they are welcomed here in our borders. we have to create, however, an environment where they can grow and they can thrive. h.r. 72 is good for individuals. it's good for families, employees, businesses, it's good for our government and it's good for our nation. and i would respectfully urge

my colleagues on both side of the aisle to support its passage. i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker, i will yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut who also sits on the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> we have spoken about a dangerous and poorly thought out effort on the part of the majority to underfund and gut the financial services regulatory apparatus that was established in the 1930's. which failed us in the last couple of years. and let's be clear, there is a legitimate tension between the amount of regulation which creates stability and confidence in a system and that which puts undue murderen on the vigor of the private market. but this effort is wrong-headed. let's look at the s.e.c. the mission of the s.e.c. is to

protect investors. the notion that we should gut the funding of the s.e.c. is anti-free market, it's anti-jobs, and it is anti-growth because we must protect those investors who take their savings and write a check and put it in the mail to accompany in some town they never visited, in a fund they don't fully understand because they know there is a cop on the beat. the families who write those checks, that's not just money. that money is a college education. it's a secure retirement. mr. himes: and they do it because they have faith. they have faith that there is a cop on the beat that whoever takes that check is closely watched, that they are prudent. this is the fundamental aspect of our economy that families and pension funds invest. we have efficient and vigorous

capital markets because of faith. let's look at the lessons that have been learned in the last couple of years. it wasn't that the s.e.c. was somehow com police anytime what happened. yeah, they fell asleep at the switch. they didn't perform any better than a myriad of other organizations. but if anything, the lesson is that the s.e.c. was outgunned, underfunded, and needed help. and the effort of the majority now is to further underfund and gut that agency. it's particularly wrong-headed because the s.e.c. pays for itself. in fiscal year 2012, the s.e.c. will be budget neutral. why do this? why risk the faith of the investors that are at the very heart of our system. we hear a lot about uncertainty. there's so much uncertainty. imagine the uncertainty for american families and pension funds and savers and small businesses if they need to send that check without knowing that there's a cop on the beat.

mr. speaker, we've seen this movie before. when the s.e.c. was established in the 1930's, the republicans at the time said this would be the end of capitalism, it would be the end of the free market, it would crush the u.s. economy. instead, putting in place a well-balanced and vigorous regulatory a rat us -- apparatus led to 60 years of the most aggressive and intense economic growth human history has ever seen because people had faith in the system. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: may i inquire -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. >> may i inquire how much time we have remain? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman new york has nine minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from california has five minutes remaining.

>> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today in support of house resolution 72. the greatest challenge facing this new 112th congress is our responsibility to support policies that foster an environment of economic certainty and that will provide businesses in virginia's fifth district and across this nation with the confidence necessary to hire and expand once again. it was refreshing to spend last week meeting with constituents and businesses in the fifth district. mr. hurt: people in businesses continue to struggle and it is clear that job creation remains the top priority for the people that i represent. as i have talked to these same job creators and constituents over the past year, it's equally clear access to capital is the lifeblood of main street business and also is clear that the overregulation represented in dodd-frank will make it increasingly difficult for capital to be available so that

our small businesses can succeed and hire new employees. my constituents believe that we must rein in the size and scope of the federal government by removing the unnecessary regulations for our job creators. house resolution 72 will begin this process in a deliberative and thoughtful manner as it directs our committees to review federal regulations and assess their negative impact on our economy. as a member of the financial services committee, i look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues as we conduct a close review of the regulations hindering job creation and economic growth for the people of the fifth district and our nation. i thank the chairman for the time and i urge a yes vote on house resolution 72. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. >> i yield two minutes to the representative from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. amash: i rise today in support of house resolution 72 which would direct the financial services committee to conduct an inventory reviewing existing pending and proposed regulations that impede job creation and economic growth. once again, my colleagues on the other side are afraid of the answers they will find when we shine the light of truth on what these regulations do. as members of congress, we need to work with job creators to help create an atmosphere in our country that will foster job growth particularly within the small business community. simply put the private sector, not the public sector creates prosperity. we don't need more government or a bigger one. last year alone the executive branch issued more than 3,000 new rules and regulations which their own small business administration reports will cost businesses over $1 trillion. both sides of the aisle agree small businesses are the

backbone of the engine of the economy and provide more than 2/3 of all american jobs. as a small business owner, i know firsthand how federal regulations can choke small businesses. mr. huizenga: the average small business with less than 20 employees faces an annual cost of $10,085 to comply with a myriad of federal regulations per worker they employ. for my small gravel company that employs two full-time workers including a gentleman who worked for my grandfather, my father and myself, that equates to more than $21,000 i have to spend towards compliance. money i could be using to invest in much-needed new equipment. last month the bureau of labor statistics reported the national unemployment rate fell from 9.6% to 9.4%. this drop is due largely to people who simply stopped looking for work. in some areas of my district, the second district in michigan, that number has nearly doubled the national average. i believe there are some

universal principles of successful businesses that congress should -- could work on to help grow our economy again. for government, that means creating an atmosphere for success through a reasonable tax and regulatory environment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i thank you very much. mr. speaker, i'd like to engage my colleague, mr. himes, in a colloquy for the balance of our time. i appreciated the comments that you made just a few minutes ago, but you alluded to the length of time that we have organized the s.e.c. and some protections and what happened, the kind of growth that we had, but now things have changed somewhat, and the oversight responsibilities are a little more complicated and difficult. what did you mean by that? mr. himes: i thank the

gentlelady from california for that question. if you look at when these regulatory bodies were established in the 1930's and you look at the volatility and the growth that happened in the next 60 years, volatility was way down and growth was way up. an american middle class took hold because they had confidence in the system. they knew that their investor dollars would be protected. then we began in the early 1990's. policymakers on both sides of the aisle to dismantle that regulation. to take the referee off the field. and so we find ourselves where we are today, uncertainty, a financial crisis meltdown at the very moment when the technology, the flash trading, the complicated securities, are bewildering in their complexity. now is exactly the wrong time to be gutting the s.e.c. we do that and people lose their confidence. ms. waters: i want to ask you, is it true that the average investor, i'm not just talking

about the big institutional investors, but the average investor understand the complication of this, do they expect we understand it and we're going to regulate it and watch out for them? what does the average investor know about this system? mr. himes: the average investor, the mom and pops, the widows and orphans funs they're not necessarily financially sophisticate pd. need somebody looking over the shoulder of those selling them stock, selling them bonds. the institutional investors you're talking about of course in many instances are exempt from regulations by the s.e.c. they're deemed to be sophisticated so they can participate in private placements and can use 144-a or reg-d to make investments but our individual investors who are so important to the economy need somebody looking over their shoulder and protecting them from snake oil salesmen and deception and poor disclosure. ms. waters: we heard on several occasions here today the

tremendous oversight responsibility given all of the capital markets that have to be monitored, that have to be regulated, what do we need to do to make the s.e.c. stronger? we've gone through this meltdown, we've gone through this crisis, the american people expect something to happen. what do they need in order to be good overseers, good cops? mr. himes: in a more complicated and sophisticated financial world, the s.e.c. must be faster, it must be more efficient, it must hire people who really understand the markets. it must be more robust and it should be held accountable. one thing it should not be and cannot be is underfunded and weak, which is what the proposal of the majority would do to it. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i've been requested to yield one minute to the opposite side of the aisle. i would happily do that. and i would do that at this point. i yield the balance of my time

to the opposite side. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has yielded one additional minute to the gentlelady from new york. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. hayworth: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hayworth: our employers and small businesses and community banks tell me costly regulations are crushing economic growth by discouraging investment and expansion, by creating uncertainty in the marketplace. and delaying hiring. we can all agree that some commonsense regulations are good but excessive government rules and regulations are bad. on the financial services committee we know that from reporting requirements in sarbanes-oxley to countless excessive new regulations in dodd-frank, the federal government is sending a message to our financial institutions,

an industry vital to my home state of new york, and the message is, you aren't welcome here. the united states is currently the financial capital of the world. our capital markets must be vibrant and we must foster an environment that promotes growth and attracts enterprise. if we fail to do that, we will see an exod us and that threat is very real, an exodus to nations like singapore, like china, who appreciate the opportunity of health -- a healthy financial industry brings and what a shame. because the american people want to go back to work them. want jobs. burdensome, costly and unnecessary regulations must be eliminated and we must trust and empower our enterprises. and our entrepreneurs. and our small businesses and community banks and our employers. by supporting the resolution we will start america on the path

to create jobs and prosperity, for our citizens in new york 19 and for our nation. and they deserve it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. ms. hayworth: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. could i inquire as to the amount of time left on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady has yielded her time to the majority. mr. bachus: so they have expended their time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has -- yes, yielded her time. to the gentleman from alabama to close. mr. bachus: all right. i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, what we're talking about is the size of the federal government and the size of our regulations. now, in the last four years of

our democratic congress, which took power in january of 2007, and i'll remind anyone, we've talked about the financial crisis, that was prior to the financial crisis. but our national debt has doubled in that period of time. in other words, we've incurred more debt in the past four years under a democrat senate and democrat house, in the last two years and you democrat president, than we have in the 220 years before. we're talking about a record national debt, $14 trillion. we're talking about a growth in the size of the federal government which in 10 years will absorb every dollar and every dime and every penny

generated by our economy. now, think of such a thing. every dollar being spent by the federal government. and you have to ask yourself, with record deficits and record debt, don't we have too much federal government, don't we have more government than we can afford? don't we have more government than we need? so i think it is entirely fitting for us to look at each government program and ask ourselves, is there a benefit from this program? is there a cost to this program? does it eliminate jobs? and if you will go through a list of comments that people have made to these regulations, will you see comment after comment after comment -- you

will see comment after comment after comment that this regulation will cost my business this much money, this regulation will cost this much money. i won't be able to create a job. so the government is spending record amounts of money and yet it's adding to the cost not only to the taxpayers but the cost of them to earn a living themselves. our secretary of defense, maybe of the administration, has warned, he said, this country's dire physical situation -- fiscal situation and the threat it poses to american influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the u.s. government gets its finances in order. he actually says that our financial situation is affecting our credibility and that's absolutely true. didn't we see japan's national

-- i mean, their sovereign debt downgraded recently? s&p 500 has said if we don't act -- standards and poors has said, if we don't act, our debt will be downgraded. foreclosures. you can imagine if our credit rating goes down, the wave of foreclosures, the wave of job losses? we talk about foreclosures, what causes foreclosures? most of it is job loss. and we've testified here today and we will tomorrow that this regulation will cost jobs. you talk about foreclosures, regulations that cost jobs cost foreclosures. it's that simple. we talk about the state and local government not having tax revenue when people lose their job, they don't pay the state, they don't pay the city.

they don't pay the federal government. they can't. and yet we continue to add cost and job-killing regulations. admiral mullen said this, chairman, our own chairman of the joint chief ofs of staff, he said, our national debt is our biggest national security threat. what does it take us to finally realize that we are putting our country in jeopardy? we for 224 years have lived and enjoyed an independent democracy , a republic. but we're threatening that by our inability to say no. our inability to say no to more federal government. ladies and gentlemen, the answer is not growing government. it's turning the private sector loose. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 188, an act to designate the united states courthouse under construction at 98 west first street, yuma, arizona, as the john m. roll united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, gasoline prices are rising and we have near double-digit unemployment. the obama administration should be doing everything with -- within its power to spur economic growth and to create new jobs. unfortunately they have not. this administration has chosen to impose regulation after regulation and policy after policy on american businesses that impede their potential growth and thus impede our economic recovery. many of these regulations delay or flat-out prevent americans from responsibly developing our own natural resources. they block access to american energy. they block access to american minerals. they block access to american water supplies. and they block access to american forest products. via their actions this administration is jeopardizing

our economic competitiveness. this jeopardy is making america more reliant on foreign countries to meet our everyday needs. mr. speaker, i don't believe americans are content with locking up our valuable resources. and i don't believe americans are content with sending american jobs overseas. but that's exactly what these regulations and policies are doing. president obama says that he wants to eliminate regulations that are strangling businesses. that's noble. but this appears to be one more example of his rhetoric not matching his actions. the rules and regulations imposed by the obama administration have allowed the federal government to insert itself in places that it's never been and frankly doesn't belong. let me give you several examples. first, burdensome regulations are being used to restrict access to american energy production on public lands. both onshore and offshore.

last year new rules were imposed for onshore lease sales that have significantly decreased energy production throughout the intermountain west. offshore the administration continues to impose a de facto moratorium on drilling in the gulf and has yet to issue a single deep well permit since last april. president obama's de facto moratorium has put thousands of americans out of work. these regulations are not only impeding oil and natural gas production but also renewable energies such as wind and solar. why? because these regulations will restrict renewable energy development to only a tiny, tiny fraction of our public lands. second, the obama administration is aggressively pursuing sweeping new changes to mining regulations. these regulations, mook, let me repeat this, these regulations by their own admission will cost thousands of american jobs and

decrease american energy production in 22 states. third, the obama administration has reversed a long standing legal agreement and moved to establish a new, quote, wire lands, end quote policy, that will further restrict public access to multiple purpose public lands. this backdoor approach will prohibit many popular forms of recreation and severely restrict job creating energy production activities. by creating de facto wilderness, the administration is circumventing congress' soul authority to establish wilderness areas. fourth, the president has signed an executive order establishing a new ocean policy and council that would severely restrict recreational and commercial use of our oceans. this policy establishes mandatory marine spatial planning otherwise known as ocean zoning. the reach of this policy may

stretch far inland, extending potentially to all rivers, attribute tears and lands that -- tributaries and lands that drain into the ocean. fifth, the environmental protection agency has allowed questionable science be used to impose regulations that could end the use of vital farm crop and tree protection products. this will cost jobs and adversely impact trade of our agriculture products. and, last, mr. speaker, but certainly not least, the obama administration has supported with holding valuable water from communities in california's san what wean callie. prior -- joaquin valley. prioritizing the needs of fish over workers and their families. this government and manmade drought cost hundreds of thousands of acres to dry up and that has resulted, mr. speaker, in an unemployment rate that exceeds 40% in that area.

so this is just one example of how the implementation of the endangered species act, which i might add hasn't been reviewed for almost 20 years, is being used to block or delay job creating projects. mr. speaker, the goal of the e.s.a. was to consider -- conserve key domestic species. but today unfortunately it's being used by special interest groups to file lawsuits and drain resources away from the real recovery efforts of those species. the national environmental policy act or nepa, and other environmental regulations are going far beyond their original intent and they, too, are being used to place unnecessary and costly burdens on economic development projects throughout the country. nepa has become a tool for litigation sometimes resulting in decades worth of delays before a project can move forward. the list of burdensome regulations and policies go on

and on and what i have described just scratches the surface. american businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. rural communities who depend on these resources are feeling their livelihoods threatened. and american families, many of whom are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, are paying more for everything from das bean -- gasoline to fruits and vegetables. a clean, healthy environment is a priority for all americans, but an equal priority is a federal government that sets sensible rules that provide clarity, certainty and allows job creating initiatives to move forward in a timely, efficient manner. . >> the obama administration needs to implement common sense. new rules will not lead to recovery. the natural resources committee and all of its subcommittees

will be conducting thorough oversight of the obama administration policies, taking a close look at how and why decisions are made. so, mr. speaker, i fully support this resolution and republicans on the natural resources committee are committed to remoting policies that will reduce spending, strengthen economy and create american jobs. and with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield myself five minutes. mr. markey: this is a very important debate because it goes right to the heart of what is needed in order to ensure that we provide the proper protections of families across our country from the

despoilation and all the environmental catastrophes that affect american families. i have a picture of the deep water horizon in flames as it's about to go to the bottom of the ocean. this, leanl, is what happened because of deregulation. this is what happened when regulations are not applied and enforced in a way that ensure that the public health and safety is protected. the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the united states. devastating the lives of 11 men and the livelihoods of millions of people in the gulf of mexico. this is the legacy of what happened during the bush administration. a ticking time bomb that exploded across our country leading to this environmental catastrophe. the same way is true in our financial marketplace. during the bush years they turned a bliped eye to obvious

problems with derivatives, obvious problems with chicanery inside the financial marketplace, a ticking time bomb that exploded, that has wreaked havoc on millions of americans, losing their homes, their jobs, and when george bush left office, the dow jones industrial average at 6400, 6400, ladies and gentlemen, after eight years in office, that's what george bush left in office, by turning a blind eye to the kinds of regulations that are needed there to protect the lives of families. and today with barack obama on the job and the securities and exchange commission doing its job the dow is over 12,000, almost doubled, because people have confidence in the regulation and can trust their money in the stock market once again. that's what happens when regulations are there to protect ordinary people.

and now what is their proposal? their proposal is to take the environmental protection agency and to turn the environmental protection agency into every polluter's ally. they're going to bring a big out here on to the house floor that says they're going to repeal the ability of the e.p.a. to improve the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive. to ensure that regulations are on the books, that we have renewable fuels, that we develop here in the united states, not imported from opec. the result of that bill that they're going to bring out here in the house floor in the next two weeks, five million barrels of oil per day that otherwise would be backed out, that we would not import from the middle east will now have to be imported, at $100 a barrel, with hundreds of dollars --

with 365 days in a year, we're talking about $162 billion a year that the american consumer will have to send to the middle east. because they do not want to regulate. they do not want to ensure that the efficiency of the cars which people drive, the amount of pollution that comes out of those cars they say is too high a price to pay. well, here, as we watch egypt explode, tunisia explode, other countries in the middle east on the verge of having the same kind of explosions. this kind of environmental and safety protection we put on the books enforces the need for us to ensure that we do not allow for the repeal of these environmental and safety protections. that's what this debate is all about. this is the same kind of war on the environment that we saw during the eight years of the bush administration. this is the result of that, ladies and gentlemen. and that's where they're going to take us if we have this

wholesale destruction of this environmental and safety regime which has been put -- which has been put on the books in order to protect the american public. at this point i ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution be yielded back and on h.res. 72 be adopted so that we can move on to consider legislation to create jobs in our country which is really what we should be debating here on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: does the majority manager, the gentleman from washington, yield for the purpose of that unanimous consent request? mr. haste igs: i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman does not yield. mr. markey: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the indian and alaska native affairs subcommittee, mr. young of alaska. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for

how much time? the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: i can't help -- i have a prepared statement. i can't help but answer the gentleman from massachusetts who never supported any time, any time -- has never supported any way any energy development in this country. he was against nuclear power many years ago, still is against it. he was against solar power, and he has since wind power in his state and is against, frankly, any fossil fuel development and depending on the so-called make believe wind power, make believe solar power, in the meantime we're buying oil from overseas and you know that. and the e.p.a., very frankly, is part of the problem. i am the chairman now of the american indian alaska natives and their lands can't be developed because of e.p.a. the navajo nation had a coal plant. they had the coal. they had the financing.

and the obama administration says no, you can't do that through the e.p.a., through the fish and wildlife, etc., and they lost the financing for a coal project because they don't believe in coal. and we have a trust relationship, the american indians. and however, the agencies in the government say you can't do it, you stay right where you are is wrong. they have the highest potential of energy of any landmass in this nation and they're precluded from development because of regulations. the e.p.a. just came out, i mentioned it earlier today, they just come out with a new concept of a regulation for dairies. this is your government, the obama -- and by the way, thank god for george bush. they're still blaming him for everything. but if i remember that horizon was done under the obama administration. if i remember correctly, it was his management agency that wasn't doing their job. there was enough regulations in

place, they weren't doing their job, if i remember that's correct. george bush was out of office. but e.p.a. now comes down with a new regulation under the oil spill liability where we develop oil, that the moneyies will be put aside for the cleanup i support but there's new regulations because they want to regulate the dairies of our nation today. and mr. and mrs. america, keep in mind they want to regulate the dairies today because there's fat in the milk. fat in the milk. and they want to have each cow be charged $600 per lifetime of that dairy, put aside in a fund to clean up spilled milk. that's your e.p.a. and regulations. remember the term don't cry over spilled milwaukee is going to cost you money now. -- don't cry over spilled milk is going to cost you money now. i can go on and on what they've done to the american indians. they don't allow them to develop their resources. and i'm saying here as chairman

we are going to develop those resources of the nations they are. that's our responsibility as a congress. and to preclude that because of axis of regulatory agencies is dead wrong. i'm asking my colleagues to remember this, every committee should be looking at every regulation. you want to balance this budget? you want to balance this budget? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. young: 1,600,000 laws on the books today were never voted on by anybody. no one voted. it cost $1,100 million a year to implement those regulations. you want to balance a budget, eliminate those regulations and you can balance them in 13 years and we can have industry again. i'm just saying this is a good idea. let's pass it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: yes. i yield five minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is

recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you mr. speaker and thank you, mr. markey. i'm listening to the debate and can relate to a lot of what is being said. i'm going to speak to the issue of water and the role it plays in our local economies. we've been working steadfastly with my colleagues on the other side, although sometimes i don't think they buy into some of the issues we're trying to push forward, the water recycling, water conservation, water efficiencies decree, not paper water which is paper on ledgers, but real water that creates jobs because of what it does in the local communities. and when we refer to the e.s.a., i sat through many a hearing with mr. pombo on the endangered peesh he's act and i can tell you, protecting the domestic species is one of the ideals that we have in this great country of ours, species, fish, species, man.

when is our turn? that's one of the things that we look towards to protect the american public, the ability for us to ensure that whatever is delivered to them, whether it's food, transportation, water, anything, that it is going to be safe not only for people but for other species. the bill reclamations water sport grants and title 16 projects which is water recycling locally institute -- initiated and fully support it and are an important part of our water supply solution. these projects create in our areas and have in the past many jobs which allow the communities to sustain their economic growth while producing portable water or water for agriculture through real efficiencies, the conservation and water recycling, the bureau of reclamation created 62,000

jobs and supported through fuppeding in 2009 through all the programming -- funding in 2009 through all the programming including title 16 and already awarded over $93.2 million for federal funding for 235 water grant projects in 16 western states from 2004 to 2010. these projects will conserve approximate 705,000 acre-feet of water per year, when fully constructed at an approximate cost of $132 per acre for the. currently it runs anywhere from -- $132 per acre-foot. title 16 projects have produced an estimated 230,000 acre-foot of real pure water in 2010. please, ladies and gentlemen, speak to your local water agencies, ask how critical projects in your communities are funding create jobs and local jobs and create water, so

badly needed especially during times of drought and mother nature does have drought cycles upon us in the united states. real water and jobs are creating through conservation, not by talk or conversation about regulation. we must support projects to conserve water, to conserve our communities and thereby create jobs. with that, i thank you very much and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserve the balance of his time? mr. markey: i tip to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, the chairman of the national parks, forest, public lands subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: we produced a document called war on jobs. we discussed 10 years from regulations from this

administration and past administrations have created specific problems and specific loss of jobs to the west. the bureau of labor statistics has said that the west has the highest regional unemployment for the past year, that indeed of the top -- six of the top 12 states that have the largest decline in employment to population ratio since the recession began were found in the west. . and washington's misguided policies were making the matter worse. whether it was in the areas of energy use, takeover of water, domestic energy mandates, prioritization of species, multiple use on national forests, overregulating, seizing western lands, bureaucratic overreach, all 10 of those areas illustrate the problems that we face in the west. in western public lands it is essential to have a resource management plan. this is not simply a dead-all approach, but indeed it is an

effort where professionals on the ground were able to come up, in the case of utah after six to 10 years of planning, following the law including the public process to come up with a policy and procedures for our plans all of which have been turned upside down by arbitrary regulations coming out of the interior department here in washington. let me give you simply two examples. an arbitrary decision that made a restrictive new regulatory framework for u.s. oil shale. the u.s. geological survey said in the 16,000 square mile area of utah, wyoming and parts of colorado, they estimate at least two trillion barrels of oil shale, that's equal to what canada is enriching to themselves, were available and experimental programs for moving forward until a regulation stopped it. the estimate, a potential loss of 100,000 jobs at $1.9 trillion to the g.d.p. of this country was lost in that particular project.

the last day -- the day after the last day of our lame duck session, secretary of interior, using questionable authorities, created a new or announced a new wildland policy. which once again stopped those management plans in their tracks. the result of that, let me simply give you one example. one company in two counties of my state, having 300 high paying jobs, who had been working for three years with leasing and environmental review process with the b.l.m., within hours of that wildlands announcement, special interest groups recommended the area they were working be managed as wild lands and their losing process was delayed indefinitely for a potential wild lands inventory. despite the fact that this entire area consists of 800 drill holes with cement casings, roads and every other sign of man that would be prohibited if it was a wilderness designation. local governments desperately need those management plans because they provide the consistency for government, for

business, to understand that. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. bishop: once again in the west, thousands of jobs have been lost. millions of dollars that should be going to schools on trust lands have been lost. billions of capital investment have been lost because of this war on the western regulation. it's time to end the war and help the people out. i look forward to this process. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time in this debate? the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. chairman, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank our ranking member, mr. markey, for the opportunity. this resolution is quite frankly an unfortunate use of our time. rather than discussing jobs and their proposal for jobs, we are discussing a resolution that's telling ourselves to do something we're already doing, which is the regulatory review.

the majority's intent of talking about what they perceive the unemployment problem to be while spending no time at all attempting to work on some real solutions. in the new west and the chairman of our subcommittee, mr. bishop, mentioned that, there was high unemployment. i would suggest we need to look deeper than the regulatory issues that he pointed out. the west leads the country in foreclosures. those were the manipulations of banks and mortgage company shenanigans that mr. markey called and as a consequence of that we lead the nation in unemployed construction workers, we lead the nation in unemployed labor and so if we're going -- and that's a deregulated industry. so i would suggest that if we're going to use unemployment as an example, look at the root problem where unemployment is in

the west. the republican majority on the natural resource committee seems to think that american people have to choose between a healthy vibrant national park forest and public lands or jobs. if you ask them for their ideas regarding job creation, will you hear cha what you're hearing. got to roll back existing protections, environmental protections, open up the ever-expanding areas of public lands to unregulated destructive resource extraction. this is a horribly false choice. created by those who care more about increasing the profits of oil, timber and mining companies than really creating jobs. this is a false choice because with a little bit of forward thinking we can create jobs that will not only provide people with paychecks but will actually improve our environment and economy and at the same time take care of our public lands. we have heard many examples from members on this side of the

aisle and we'll continue to hear that today and i am proud to do my part as well. yesterday i reintroduced with the senior member of our committee, mr. markey, the public lands service corps legislation, h.r. 587. this legislation passed congress last year and i am pleased to reintroduce it. at the same time that we are facing high unemployment, we also face huge backlogs of labor intensive work needed on national parklands, forests, wildlife areas, historic sites and indian lands. years of inadequate funding have put land management agencies far behind on the vital maintenance work while infrastructure continues to come -- crumble. our legislation would provide opportunity through three departments, interior, agriculture and commerce. provide opportunity, service

learning opportunities on public lands, help restore our natural cultural and historic resources and train a whole new generation of public land managers and promote the value of public lands. this legislation will modernize the scope of the corps to reflect the new challenges. such as climate change and adding incentives to attract new participants, especially from under-represented populations. by providing job training -- by providing opportunity we are providing opportunity with a chance to succeed. i would suggest that as we talk about legislation and we talk about jobs, that we talk about job creation. and not merely talk about the need for jobs, but talk about the specificity of what are going to be the mechanisms and the techniques to put people back to work.

the use of the misery of unemployment in this community as a reason to give away our natural resources is cynical at best. it doesn't create jobs, it doesn't protect americans and it doesn't empower our communities or protect our very valuable and cherished public lands. and to do so, this resolution begs the question, it does not talk, it does not specify what we need to do, it merely reiterates an ideology that says, no regulation. we've seen that history, we've seen its consequences and i urge a no vote on this. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from

colorado, the subcommittee chairman of the energy and minerals committee, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for four minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. under normal circumstances the programs under the jurisdiction of energy and mineral resources subcommittee bring in a second highest revenue to the federal treasury. provide opportunities for american job creation and contribute to our nation's economic and national security. however, the obama administration is crippling american energy and mineral production through restrictive new policies, rules and regulations. president obama's de facto moratorium on offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico has left many thousands of people out of work. since last spring, the administration has issued only a handful of new shallow water permits and they have issued no new permits for deep water leases. why are no new permits being issued? the reason is simple, it's

regulatory confusion. the administration is attempting to create new rules for oil and gas permitting and has repeatedly changed the rules and moved the goal post on companies operating on both federal lands and waters. instead of thoughtful, reasoned rule making that seeks public comments and engagements, the administration unilaterally directed the change of over 14,000 engineering requirements. the louisiana secretary of natural resources has said the changes would not enhance safety but instead, quote, creates a regulation with increased safety risks, mandates that cannot be met and too many ambiguous and unenforceable requirements to count unquote. this same regulatory -- count, unquote. this same regulatory uncertainty is happening all over the country. take the western united states. while the administration has anountsed that solar energy is

one ofs i high -- announced that solar energy is one of its highest priorities, it has created tremendous regulatory confusion. the new solar energy zones proposal, while potentially helping some solar development, has left dozens of major energy projects and many jobs with no regulatory path forward. the regulatory confusion on federal lands is even worse for onshore oil and gas production. rule changes and regulations have cost billions in lost investments in the west. in my home state of colorado, there's been nearly a 90% drop, a 90% drop in new leases on federal land. a recent study by the respected western energy alliance has documented $3.9 billion in investment that was divert -- diverted from the west in 2010 because of red tape and overregulation by the department of interior. the western energy alliance estimates this lost investment

could have helped create upwards of 16,000 jobs in the west and these are high-paying jobs. the administration is now examining how to impose federal regulations for the first time on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. this proposal would duplicate state permitting and create an unnecessary obstacle for american energy development. finally, no discussion of burdensome regulations would be complete without addressing the administration's war on coal. nowhere is this effort more evident than their effort to rewrite current surface mining rules. the current rule was the result of years of environmental review, public comment and hearings and responsible rule making. the administration is now purposefully limiting public comment opportunities and rushing forward with a rule that by its own admission will cost thousands of jobs. even worse, the obama

administration that recently pulled a permit three years after it was approved for a coal mine that was already hiring people. what sort of confidence can anyone have in an administration and its regulatory environment when issued permits can be stripped away at whim? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. to conclude, this resolution asks us to focus on the impacts of restrictive regulations just like this and that is what we plan to do. we will focus on how we can clear away these regulatory hurdles to create a path for energy security, lower energy prices, help for balancing our budget and most of all, more high-paying energy jobs for americans. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes.

mr. garamendi: as i listened to this debate this evening, mr. speaker, i find myself wanting to focus on jobs. but what i've just heard makes my blood boil. i was the deputy secretary at the department of interior by the rapers and pill anders of the public land wanted all regulations to disappear. they wanted to have open hunting for minerals, for oil, for gas and coal on all public lands and you talked a moment ago about the pulling of that permit for that coal mine. they would end that permit, level the hills of appalachia, flatten them, ruin the streams, destroy, destroy, destroy. the regulations are there for a reason. they are there to protect the precious environment of america. and if it is your intent to do away with those regulations, then know this, you will have a fight on your hands. you will have a fight on your

hands when you try to do away with the regulations that protect the men and women on those drilling rigs from the extraordinary accidents that happened in deep water drilling. but my purpose here tonight is different. my purpose here tonight is to ask why it is that the republican majority has spent five weeks, fike weeks leading this congress -- five weeks leading this congress and not created one bill that creates one job? not one. five weeks, zero jobs. . you ran on jobs. where are your job bills? this whole debate is hiding something because as we speak here, you are in the process of figuring out how to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget for the next seven months. what does that mean? it means that national parks will close.

it means the clean water people that came to my office today will have no money. no money. to build the sanitation systems and provide clean water for their citizens in the rural communities that you were just talking about. what is this about? this is about hiding the ball. this is about wasting our time when we ought to be talking about jobs. instead, you are hiding $100 billion cut that will displace hundreds of thousands of workers in the next seven months. that is what this is about. we're talking about hiding the ball when it comes to men and women that maintain those very places you talk about out there in the great western lands. you're hiding the ball about the cuts you're going to make to education, for the teachers that will lose their jobs, for the janitors, for the bus drivers, for those people that are now employed, they will lose their jobs as you attempt to put those cuts in place. this is about jobs.

the democrats are talking about jobs. we're talking about making it in america. we're talking about those solar projects. yes. we're talking about who's going to win the next energy, the next energy systems for this world. it's not coal. it's not oil. it's the green renewable energies and nuclear. that's what we're talking about on our side. we're talking about how we can do that. and you're talking about wasting nine hours of precious time on this floor doing what you've already done. you've already issued the edicts of what you're going to do in this committee. i received it two weeks ago. you're going to explore this, resue that. two weeks ago you told me a new member of this committee what you intend to do and now you're wasting our time on this floor when we ought to be talking about jobs. we ought to be talking about china, getting ahead of us on tomorrow's energy, wind, solar, solar thermal, all of those

things. but no. no. we're going to talk about what you've already done. you did it two weeks ago. why are you wasting our time when americans want jobs? when americans want solid legislation like make it in america. using our tax money to buy solar and wind equipment that is manufactured in america. why don't we talk about that. why don't we talk about using our money, our tax money we pay every day at the gasoline pump, about american made buses and trains? but no, we're going to talk about regulations. you've already told us what you're going to do. let's talk about creating jobs. that's what we ought to be doing here. we ought not be wasting our time doing what you've already done. you've told us what you're going to do. and by the way, if you think for a moment you can do away with those regulations that are protecting america's precious resources and lives, know this, you've got to fight.

you've got to fight that you lost in the 1990's. you lost it in the 2000 to 2008 period and you will lose that fight because we are about creating good, healthy jobs in america that does not destroy the american environment. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. after hearing the last gentleman, i yearn for these open rules we're going to have. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. the chair will remind all members in their comments under the rules to direct their comments to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, from the wildlife subcommittee. jim: the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to bypass the hysterics and talk about things

that mean something to americans. i represent the fourth zrict of louisiana. i have a deep and abiding appreciation for the coast alouette lands and thousands of jobs that are dependent on the gulf of mexico. we in louisiana understand the offshore oil and gas industry is critical to our long-term economic survival. despite the tragedy of the deep water accident, the citizens of louisiana support environmentally safe offshore energy development and are growing increasingly frustrated if not angry at the obama administration de facto moratorium that occurs today in the gulf. time delays that recently resulted in a louisiana federal judge finding the department of the interior in contempt of court. this moratorium caused the loss of thousands of jobs. it has increased our growing dependence on imported oil and contributed to the accelerated increase in the price of gasoline.

mr. fleming: we've also heard an ongoing drumbeat of misinformation about hydrolic factory which is a long-standing practice that's been effectively regulated by the states for over 60 years. in my own congressional district, hydraulic factoring is important for the development of our shale. our state tax revenues have increased by $00 million in 2009 alone. and more than 57,600 new jobs in louisiana have been created. let there be no mistake. if you add unnecessary and strangling bureaucratic red tape to hydraulic factoring, the net result is less jobs and less energy for this country. as the chairman of the subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife, oceans and insular affairs, i will be conducting comprehensive oversight

reviews, hearings on several job-destroying regulations and policies that are being promoted by the obama administration. the most far-reaching and least understood of these policies are those being proposed by president obama's national ocean council which will auditional layers of bureaucracy as well as a new zoning process for the coastal and marine environments. yes, actual zoning out in the ocean. the council is in the process of creating a new layer of oversight over both recreational and commercial activities. this will either override or replace a number of existing state initiated cooperative efforts with a federally led planning process based on new federal guidelines. in addition, the administration has undertaken a process to zone the nation's oceans and coastal areas. this process could reach far inland and could override local manning -- planning and zoning

processes. this will have an effect on the job and economic livelihood. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield additional time? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: clearly this will have an effect on the fishery communities and could have a devastating economic impact on a range of ocean users. for that reason i stand in support and urge my colleagues to support this resolution as well. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mark eye: mr. speaker, the independent, bipartisan commission on the b.p. oil spill issued its final report last month. mr. markey: mr. speaker, the independent bipartisan commission on the b.p. oil spill issued its final report last month.

it yielded it created the worst economic disaster in our country's history and was not an isolated incident, that the problems were systemic across the entire oil and gas industry. that report was a blistering, scalding indictment of the deregulatory environment which was created at the department of interior that led inevitably to this catastrophe, this environmental catastrophe. but are we here tonight debating legislation to implement the reforms that the commission presented to the congress in order to prevent another catastrophe like this? no, we are not. we are instead debating whether or not we should have fewer regulations, whether or not regulations that actually protect against incidents like this hurt job creation. well, ladies and gentlemen, what we learned from the deep water horizon catastrophe was

that lax regulation doesn't save money, lax regulation costs money. lax regulation does not create jobs, lax regulation destroys jobs. and in this case, lax regulation led to the loss of 11 lives, 155 other individuals who were seriously injured, lax regulation, ladies and gentlemen. it leads to catastrophe. boosterism breeds overconfidence and overconfidence breeds disaster. that's what happens in our financial markets. that's what happens in environmental and health regulation when you just trust the private sector to always do the right thing. ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when the government doesn't move in to protect the little guy, to

protect ordinary citizens. the reason that we were able to move from the average age of death at 48 years of age in the year 1900 after 5,000 years from the garden of eden in 1900, the 79 years of age just 100 years later as we started to regulate for public health and safety for ordinary people, mathusula always lived until 900 years and the wealthy did well. but only until regulations started to be put on the books to protect the meat, the water, the air and environment in which people lived did ordinary families start to benefit as well. that's what they want to take off the books. that's the agenda of the large companies across our country. i yield myself one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank you. how do you create jobs? we haven't heard that yet. we haven't heard that yet. well, they say drilling. well, last year there were 4,700 new leases that were granted by the bureau of land

management. but the oil industry only began drilling on 1,400 of them. only 1/3. now, we don't really have to worry going forward in the future because at $100 a barrel , plus, ladies and gentlemen, the $40 billion in tax breaks that the republicans want to give to the oil industry over the next five years, we don't have to worry that they're going to go drill because they're going. and drilling. but why are we giving them $40 billion and why aren't the republicans out here as free market devotees and say let's take that $40 billion of taxpayer money away from the oil industry? why aren't they doing that? why are they going to allow the taxpayers to be shaken upside down at the gas pump and have money come out of their pockets the rest of the year as the price of the gallon of gasoline goes to $3.40, all the way to $4 a gallon again. i yield myself one additional minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: because the real agenda here is to create as many red herrings as they can. about the real agenda. matter of fact, we can put an aquarium out here there are so many red herrings. matter of fact, so many red herrings are being created by the republicans in this debate they wouldn't be an endangered species because there are so many things they're saying that is taking us off the real agenda they're talking about and the real agenda is to make sure we do not invest in wind or solar, and by the way, in the waxman-markey bill that passed last year, $60 billion was put in the waxman-markey bill for clean coal technology, $75 billion was put into that bill for nuclear technology that they could apply for low-interest loans. to build nuclear power plants in our country, plus wind and solar and geothermal, plus all the other things we do domestically in our country. what we're talking about here,

though, is a different agenda altogether. it's an agenda that will just allow the oil industry to go back to business as usual without the regulations to protect the public health and safety. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of miss time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: could i inquire of the time on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has nine minutes remaining and the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the water and power subcommittee, mr. mcclintock from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i know i speak for all my republican colleagues on the water and power subcommittee when i say we are excited and eager to undertake the mission outlined in house resolution 72 to identify the federal regulations in this bill that are impeding job creation and th