the only problem we've got is deciding where to start. a generation ago, the principle objective of our water and power policy was to create an abundance of both. it was an era when vast reservoirs in hydroelectric facilities produced a cornucopia of clean and plentiful water and electricity on a scale so vast that many communities didn't even bother to measure the stuff. . but that what been mr. ayotte: been a doned in the -- by but that has been abandoned. the result is scarce and expensive water and power that underminings our prosperity as a nation. nowhere is that more evidents that in the central valuey of california. this last congress sat idly by as this administration deliberately diverted 200 billion gallons of water away from the most abundant agricultural region of our

nation all to satisfy the environmental left and its pet cause, a three-inch minnow. this willful diversion cost over 20,000 farm workers their jobs. it inflicted up to 40% unemployment rates in the region. it destroyed more than a quarter million acres of the most fertile farm land in america. and it forced up the price of groceries for us all. or we can start with where this administration is pushing totary down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams that generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet. enough to power over 150,000 homes because we're told of at strosk declines of salmon. when i suggested building a satch am -- salmon hatchry instead, i was informed there already is one. it produces five million salmon

smolet a year, 17,000 of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn, but they're deliberately ignored in the population counts. to add insult to insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the salmon, they're also tearing down the fish hatchry that actually is saving the salmon. we can begin in colorado where they've sacrificed over 1,000 megawatts from the grand canyon dam for the humpback chub at the expense of a long neglected species called homosapiens. mr. speaker, ronald reagan was right. in this crisis government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. the good news is that it's entirely within our power to correct and it was clearly the mandate of the american people last fall and we will act on that mandate beginning with a series of hearings and actions directly related to this much-needed resolution.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. and i do so just to say that democrats see high unemployment and we look forward, we recognize that american ingenuity, innovation and hard work can dig us out of this hole by creating high-paying, long-term domestic jobs in new, vibrant industries. the republican majority, they see high unemployment and they look backwards. they seek to increase the already massive profits with huge international corporations and hope that on their way to the bank they hire a few people here and there. ladies and gentlemen, the great challenge of our time is to not allow china and germany to replace opec as the place from which we have to import our energy technologies. if there is no plan, which is forth coming from the republican

majority, which so far has not presented itself because they have yet to have one bill that actually creates one job come here onto the house floor in the first five weeks that they have controlled the majority, then i am afraid that the next generation of young americans will wonder, why all of the solar and wind technology is being manufactured in china and they here in america are unemployed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington voiced. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a valuable new member of our committee, mr. gosar from arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, arizona is under attack. from overregulation, out-of-control spending and government red tape. the small businesses that power my district can no longer compete. i just wrapped up a week-long tour of my district and one thing was clear. the federal government is in the way and inhibiting my district from creating jobs. government agencies have

overregulated our businesses out of existence. take, for example, the shultz fire. last year a 12-year-old girl lost her life because of the government's inability to use our forest resources in a commonsense fashion. and as a further insult, this manmade bureaucrat-dictated disaster resulted in a fire that could have been prevented and now we, the american taxpayer, will be fose forced to pay for it for the next 50 to 100 years. enough is enough. a bureaucrat in washington, d.c., should not dictate decisions that are best left to local communities who have to suffer the tragic consequences of government's actions. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time in this debate? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. speaker, we only have one speaker remaining on our side and so until the

majority is down to one speaker, we would like to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield one two minutes to another new valuable member of the resources committee, mr. johnson. of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for how much time does the gentleman yield? two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of house res.lusion 72. for too long the e.p.a., the department of the interior and other permitting agencies have held vitally important energy projects hostage to their unreasonable job-killing demands. in eastern and southeastern ohio, our unemployment rates are among the highest in the state and we're falling behind the rest of the nation. but we're blessed when an abundance of natural resources that we can tap into to create thousands of high-paying jobs and economic opportunity if the government would simply get out of the way. over the last week i met with my

constituents at three town hall meetings and there was one message that came through loud and clear. get the government out of the way so we can get back on the right economic track. right now there's a company that wants to invest $6 billion in eastern ohio for a clean energy project that would turn coal to liquid while capturing 85% of all carbon dioxide produced. this project would create at least 2,500 direct jobs, that would help revitalize the local economy. but at each and every turn, federal regulators have moved the goal post, making it more and more difficult for this project to get off the ground. mr. speaker, eastern and southeastern ohio cannot afford to lose the jobs this project would create. we can't afford for the company to call it quits due to what can only be described as federal harassment. it's time that the federal government gets out of the way so we can under leash our natural resources, both onshore and offshore, to create high paying jobs and put us on the road to energy independence. we got to get serious, mr. speaker, about our energy

future. i encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: mr. speaker, i am the last remaining speaker on our side. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time? the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, can i inquire again how much time on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am very, very pleased to yield two minutes to another new member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the top concerns i'm hearing from my constituents is the state of our economy and jobs. and that's why i rise today in support of this resolution directing the committees of the house to examine and exercise oversight of federal agency regulations and their impact on

the economy. the u.s. department of energy recently announced that we currently have the highest gas prices in this country that we've ever had during the month of february and it makes no sense for the department of energy -- excuse me, the department of the interior to continue to resist access to our own sources of american energy. this is critical. because our country's economic health is tied to having a robust energy sector. obama administration officials estimated it would cost roughly 23,000 jobs if they enacted the deep water drilling moratorium but it went ahead anyway. and to add further insult to americans, it also included a shallow water regulatory permit slowdown. and recently a judge held the department in contempt for the administration's drilling moratorium. congress and this administration can and should encourage private sector job growth. not hinder it with unreasonable

regulations. we risk losing more scarce jobs and more investment capital every single day to the ever-increasing weight of our federal bureaucracy. many of these regulations place significant burdens on manufacturers and small businesses at a time when our economy can least sustain them. according to the small business administration, federal regulations cost american businesses between 8,000 and -- $8,000 and $10,000 per year per employee and between $15,000 to $37,000 per american household each year. one of the worst offenders of this regulatory epidemic under the obama administration is the environmental protection agency. unfortunately the expansion of their power is not without cost. to name a few of e.p.a.'s pending egregious actions and the estimated consequences, one, a ban on the pesticide which will result in the potential loss of 45,000 ago-related jobs. two, a mandate requiring the use of expensive or economically unsound renewable energy sources , causing a 5ds.2 trillion cut

in our g.d.p., a $2,400 cut in household incomes per year and a loss of one million american jobs. number three, new unsubstantiated ozone standards costing $1 trillion in compliance costs and $7.-- 7.3 million jobs lost. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. flores: and add insult to injury, when asked of their regulations had a cost benefit analysis, they said that they didn't need them, that their rules were among the most cost effective in government. i strongly beg to differ. i think that the arrogant nature of the e.p.a. and the administration is not doing the american jobs -- the american business any favors or american jobs any favors. something has to be done to stop this epidemic. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: is the gentleman --

mr. hastings: i am the last speaker on this side. you can get back to the celtics game here very quickly if you -- mr. markey: i appreciate that. i appreciate that the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself the remainder of our time and i appreciate the gentleman from washington state and i know that the gentleman from washington state and right behind me, mr. mcdermott, will also be now controlling the time for the ways and means committee and both gentlemen come from washington state which saw its seattle supersonics leave the city to go to oklahoma just two years ago. so they don't have a stake in the celtics-lakers game that has already begun on television right frow -- now. i appreciate the conclusion of this debate right now and kind of a conscientious objection that all of you have to any games being played across our country.

so i'm glad to be here, to be a part of this debate. and to say to the gentleman from washington state that just two weeks ago we passed by unanimous consent the oversight plan which the majority has for the department of interior. and the minority sign off on that oversight plan, over all of the regulations and all of the various agencies that come under the jurisdiction of our committee. we did not fight that. this debate tonight really is something that doesn't really even have to take place. the committee, our committee, the natural resources committee, is already fully empowered to do all of the oversight that they believe is necessary and we will be there joining with them where it is necessary to conduct that oversight. coming back, though, to the central point, that's something that we all agree upon. what the american people want is to see what the agenda is for

the creation of jobs in our country. that's what has been lacking on the house floor since the republicans have taken over the house of representatives. and that's the most important agenda for our country. and i don't believe that we can accomplish that goal. if the republicans continue with their objective at -- of $100 million profits going to oil companies, at the same time that they want to give $40 billion worth of tax breaks to them. that is not really a good policy for our country. that's not going to create any new jobs. it would be better if we took that party -- $40 billion, moved it over to wind and solar and all electric vehicles, that we moved it over to take care of the low income people whose oil prices are just skyrocketing across this country, so that people don't freeze in their own homes, that would be a better use of that $40 billion, instead

of handing it over to the oil and gas industry. we would create more jobs, we would protect people and keep them safe in their own homes and we would have a better balance for where this country should be going. instead we're here debating oversight of these agencies and we agree with the need to do so. we probably disagree over the extent to which we should deregulate them. in fact, if we deregulate too much, if we take too many regulations off the books, we're just going to see a repetition of the same kind of environmental disasters that have ravaged our country over the years, the same kind of economic collapse that was as a result of turning a blind eye to the shenanigans that went on in the financial marketplace, with the big wall street firms that were not given the proper oversight and on and on down the line. . we want to work with you on the

oversight that is necessary. that's why we signed off on the planch to do the oversight. we have wasted an hour here on an issue that we already agree about that we should be partners and make sure that wherever there are -- there is wrongdoing, that we should partner together to root it out. but this is part of a larger agenda that seeks to destroy the wind and solar industries in our country, to cut dramatically the low-income heating assistance, to keep the $40 billion in tax breaks on the books for the largest oil and gas companies in our country, even as they are going to enjoy $100 billion worth of profits this year, given to them by tax breaks that are 100 years old, with the price of a barrel of oil at $100 a barrel. that is absolutely absurd,

ladies and gentlemen. it is squandering of the limited resources that should be spent on creating new jobs in the renewable energy sector. and creating jobs by the millions that young people in our country want to create. they want to be able to tell opec, we don't need your oil any more than we need your sand. and as mubarak is teatering, the one message we can send to the middle east is the same message that president kennedy sent to khrushchev in 1961, we are going to use our technological might in order to fend off this threat that is posed to our country, economically, militarily, environmentally. we are going to use this as an opportunity. that's where we should move over the next weeks and months and i hope we can do it together and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts'

time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 1 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts willing to work with us on this issue. there are some on the other side that we wanted to do something that we aren't debating here and that is to wipe every regulation off the book. no. what we are trying to do is look at the regulations and see where they aren't being carried out as congress intended them. and i think specifically what we want to do, since this president took office, even though she should have done that with past presidents, but since he took office, the scope and reach of the executive branch has been expanded and documented by every speaker and acknowledged by speakers on the other side. the question, mr. speaker, is why. and what is the cost to our economy and american jobs.

congress has an obligation to look into this and to hold the administration accountable in any administration for that matter in the future. so, mr. speaker, what we are doing here tonight with this resolution on the floor that we are debating by virtually all committees in the house is simply starting that process. and i look forward to working with my friends across the aisle, because we appear to have common ground. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i rise in support of h.res. 72 directing certain committees to review existing, pending

regulations particularly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.res. 72 and it instructs the committee on ways and means and other committees to review existing pending regulations and focus on the impact on the nation's economy. listening to the stories here tonight from both sides, one thing i would like to say, oftentimes our discussion about regulation gets caught up in unnecessary emotion and ideology. one point i would like to make in this, so much of what we

address are process issues. when we increase complexity, we can reduce effectiveness. i'm not opposed to regulation, but i'm a strong supporter of sensible regulation and looking at the secondary effects of regulations that either come from poor legislation, it was too broadly written or compromise is so great and so alas particular that the bills were thrown over the walls to agencies that may not act within the inat the present time of congress and not working closely. i think of constitutional importance for our body is to make sure we work teague with those who are regulated and those who are the executive agencies to ensure there is a high quality outcome and communities not overly burdened. and many much that context has gotten lost from many of the agencies that come into being over time. the motivation for me after my professional career prior to

congress in addressing this issue of regulation doesn't come from feeling the standards are wrong, but so many regulations impede or prevent actual job growth and innovation. the question i asked time and again in the period of the last congress, particularly last year is, where are the jobs? with this growth of a regulatory state, what we do not understand are those impacts on business owners who need predictability in order to hire people. we can have fine sounding language about the intent of the legislation but as we know from the health care bill and others, many members didn't read the bill or the second effects that would come from implementing policy and left regulators with an impossible task and many of the rules are nearly impossible to implement effectively in a cost effective manner. i would say any reforms in government that should be bipartisan should be one of those, first for the institution, and second for the

people we represent to create jobs. we can remove a great deal of that unpredictability and give certainty rather than creating an adverse i can't recall relationship between the executive branch and the people who create the jobs and specifically our small business owners. this resolution is necessary because the regulatory code is far too complex and burdensome. impeding america's ability to create jobs. the annual cost of federal regulations in the united states exceeded $1.75 trillion in 2008, double the amount of all individual taxes collected last year. one of the comments that was made both sides agree all the time is the ability to refine regulations. i would say that the government reform act was used one time in its existence since 1995 to stop a regulation that was go go to be considered unnecessary or too

costly. there is a small program in the small business administration to address costs over time and coming out with their top 10 regulations for review. in that time, the only thing that has been done of thousands and thousands of regulations that have been reviewed or pushed for reform was removing a payment to architects and construction companies doing government contracts. that's not affecting the core of this, the ability to korea ate the jobs. at a time when our economy is struggling to recover, we can't afford to have anything other than a sensible regulatory code and must be the mission of this congress to improve the competitiveness of the united states in the global economy and thus create jobs. the resolution we consider tonight represents an important first step in the process by learning to develop eyes to see the roots of the problem and the imposition on businesses. again, this is not anti-regulation but asking the question, why are we accepting a regulation, what are the impacts of it going to be and allowing

those to be regulated to be part of this discussion. it's important for us to reform the code and reform the process of how we view that code so there is transparency and accountability and a check and balance that the american people have not only on us but the executive branch as well. we just entered our 21st straight month of 9% unemployment. americans continue to look for work. members of congress have the responsibility to ask ourselves are we addressing job creation by removing barriers and creating conditions that encourage businesses to hire. in industrial engineering language, we would call that asking the question, is this a nonvalue-adding regulation? does it add value to safety in a true and tangible form, but for example, but half of all the regulations in on or abouta have nothing to do with actual safety but compliance standards that

could shut a business down. this is not a standard but simply asking the question of removing excesses, extraneous overhead. the agencies will be more efficient and much more effective in creating jobs in the private sector. for the past two years, the question -- the answer to one question is simply that we have not been adequately addressing job creation by removing these barriers to growth and encouraging businesses to hire. from the failed stimulus package and misguided health care reform, american businesses have been hit with an explosion of new taxes and regulations that increase the cost of doing business and therefore make it more difficult for businesses to hire. for small businesses that have less than 20 employees, the regulatory burden averages to 10,585 per employee per year. they are responsible for 64% of net new hires and could play a role in lowering our unemployment rate if the regulatory burden is reduced and brought into scale versus a

large businesses. excessive regulations can have a direct impact on american families by increasing the cost of food, medicine, doctor visits and utility bills for services like electricity, water and sewer rates. i'm encouraged that president obama has recognized the potential negative economic effects of regulation and rules in his state of the union address and a recent op ed in the "wall street journal" that followed an editorial about a bill i introduced last year. this is not a partisan issue. both republican and democratic administrations and. i'm concerned that the president's recent rhetoric on regulation may be just that, rhetoric. despite these comments, the administration has used the regulatory process, not the congress, to advance elements of its agenda that cannot be passed in the congress. after speaker pelosi forced the job-killing cap and trade bill through the house of

representatives, the legislation was stopped in a democratically controlled senate. in december of 2009, the environmental protection agency took matters into its own minds without approval of the congress. and this races serious questions of our ability to control and provide oversight of the executive branch on behalf of the constituents we represent. these regulations would have disastrous consequences that result in high energy costs and utility rates for small businesses and manufacturers that employ millions of americans of the any time a regulation or rule enacted by an executive branch and broad reaching implications, it should be subject of the review of the congress to be accountable to our citizens and not a faceless bureaucrat. this is the idea behind h.r. 10, legislation that i introduced to provide greater accountability and transparency in the rule-making process. it would require up or down

stand-alone vote on all rules that have a direct impact over 100 million and signed by the president before they can be enforced on the american public. while it reforms the practice while these regulations, the resolution addresses those rules already on the books or those that have been proposed. president obama has ordered his agencies to review rules and proposals that may be hindering job creation or economic growth. it is superior to the review in several important ways. the resolution before us would ask the house committees to review regulations rather than the agencies that created them and enforced them. the fox should not guard the hen house. before even beginning, the review required by the president's executive order, the e.p.a. announced that it was confident that the review process would not result in the repeal or alteration of a single current or pending rule. that is not internal oversight and it goes against the clear,

express will of the american people and elected representatives and senators. when house oversight committee chairman called on trade associations to identify regulations that burden their businesses, e.p.a. rules were cited more than any other federal agency. bypassing this regulation we will have a review that analyzes costs. before elected to congress i ran a manufacturing business. we process improvement and flow management. in other words, we took inventory of a manufacturing facilities' processes and understood the flow and sought to decrease complexity and increase the overall throughput thus protecting the existing jobs and creating more jobs in return. that is what h.res. 72 is asking the committees to do. streamline our regulatory code and make our economy more competitive. even saving a small percentage of the 1.75 trillion currently

spent on compliance each year by job creators would free up capital which can create jobs. join me in supporting this resolution to begin the process of reforming the federal code and get our economy moving and hiring again. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. levin: this is about oversight and what the majority is doing is losing sight of the needs of tens of thousands of workers in this country. what they are doing is overlooking the needs of the workers of this country. our committee has jurisdiction over trade adjustment and what's

happened this week regarding trade adjustment assistance is really incomprehensible and i think disgraceful. this congress is going to leave town tomorrow. on saturday the extension of t.a.a. expires. the 2009 extension. and what's going to happen, tens of thousands of people will be laid off because of trade, will no longer be able to be certified. tens of thousands. they will be out of luck when they hit bad luck through no fault of their own. we've received all kinds of communications from people in my state and i'm sure there are people like this in every single state.

we heard from a machinist, laid off, qualified for t.a.a., and is now pursuing a career as a technician. he's in a program that goes on for a few years. before t.a.a. was overhauled in 2009 states could not have approved training of that length , nor have approved the prerequisite training. we heard of another worker, a service worker in the state of michigan, laid off, qualified for t.a.a. and is now pursuing an associates degree. she's planning to complete her program in june of 2012. before the t.a.a. reforms of 2009, service workers were not even eligible for t.a.a.

we also know of another person who was laid off, a dye helper, whose qualified for t.a.a. to continue training on a part time basis. only because of the extensions of 2009, the changes, the improvements, that this person could have been in that training. then another worker in michigan, and there are workers throughout the country like this, who learned that she would be laid off, petitioned for t.a.a. and began pursuing an m.a. degree before she actually lost her job. there are thousands of people who are going to be in this position and because the majority in this house have failed to act, there are going to be tens of thousands of people who will have no place to

turn in terms of training. since the 2009 improvements, about 177,000 people have been able to receive training. 170,000. and now beginning monday tens of thousands will not be able to be certifieder to help -- for help. now, this isn't own in the state of michigan. it's not only in the state of ohio. it's not only in the state of indiana. it's not only in pennsylvania. this is true throughout the country. true throughout the country. and essentially the majority here is leaving, turning their backs on the people of this country. so, what happened this week was the following.

that a few groups outside of this institution decided they did not want to support the 2009 expansion of benefits. and a group within this house, the republican study committee, issues a document urging republicans not to support the extension. there are many or some republicans in this house who are ready to support it. but they pull back the bill. in the document from the study committee has this as one of the reasons why we should not step up to the plate. they said, under t.a.a. programs, the government picks winners and losers because t.a.a. favorably discriminates towards workers who lost their jobs due to trade. well, picking winners and losers , what t.a.a. does is to fill in

gaps that were not filled in previously and often gaps that were increased because of the inaction of the now majority of this house. and talking about winners and losers, the losers are going to be the unemployed people of this country, unemployed through no fault of their own, unemployed looking for work who will not be able to be certified for t.a.a. this is a disgrace. and there are some people who will continue to be eligible for t.a.a. who are going to have to now pay more for their health care if they can afford it. when we put this together a few years ago, this is what senator grassley said about the reforms. and i quote, today's achievement

is the result of the dedication, hard work and commitment of many individuals. it is the culmination of years of effort and i am confident that the result will serve to benefit american workers in iowa and across the united states for years to come. end of quote. the failure of the republicans to bring this bill to the floor this week means that what senator grassley said will serve to benefit american workers in iowa and across the united states for years to come, that's going to end on saturday. on saturday. on monday, because saturday it's a weekend, people who are laid off because of trade are going to hit a wall.

a wall. so we are in favor of oversight. we made that clear earlier. we are also sure we should not be short-sighted about the needs of productive people who want to work and cannot find a job. the person speaking on behalf of the republicans, my distinguished colleague on the ways and means committee, talked about those who are out of work through no fault of their own. you mentioned nine million? there's a record number of people in this country who have been unemployed for a longer period of time than has been true in the past. and now all they ask for,

unemployment comp in many cases, they're looking for work, and a chance to be retrained. a chance to be retrained. on monday, for thousands, that chance will be gone. that should not have happened. i know -- i now ask consent of the chair that the gentleman from washington manage the balance of the time on the democratic side. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to a distinguished fellow member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from california, chairer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i want to thank mr. davis for his leadership in

working to bring more congressional oversight to the regulatory process. the heavy hand of overbearing environmental regulations has struck my northern california rural congressional district in full force. the endangered species act, in addition to regulations under the clean water act, clean air act and other environmental laws, continue to be enforced by federal agencies and activists to curtail irrigation water for family farms and ranches, force communities and developers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on environmental analysis and even threaten public health and safety by delaying forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfire and much-needed infrastructure such as flood-preventing levees and transportation improvements.

another set of job crushing regulations surrounds the 3% with holding tax that is set to go into effect next year. this tax will cost far more in unfunded mandates on small businesses and state and local governments than it will ever raise in revenue for the federal government. mr. speaker, tomorrow i will be reintroducing bipartisan legislation to repeal the unfair 3% with holding tax and i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the government with holding relief coalition, highlighting this provision regulatory burden and urging its repeal. the speaker pro tempore: without objection wks. mr. herger: i strongly support this resolution and look forward to stopping the regulatory assault on my constituents and our nation's economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: meeb, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- the gentleman from washington is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, as we come out to discuss this resolution 72, i couldn't help but think of a story from the middle part of the united states of america. there was a methodist minister who fell ill, very, very seriously ill, and the head of the board of deacons called the board together to have a discussion about what they should do about the problems of the ailing minister. they had a long discussion, it took not as long as this debate will take, but it took two hours

, and at the end, by a vote of 4-3, with 17 be a stentions, they wrote a letter to the minister urging him to get well. now, this resolution has about as much affect as that letter to that minister in central illinois. two years ago, just think about what the difference a day makes, january 28, 2009, this congress passed the american recovery act. $700 billion that stopped the economic collapse in this country, that got us started on recovery from the problems created by the previous administration. we did that in less than 100 days. now, we've been here 100 days and this week, let me just

review for the week, there used to be a tv program i liked when i was a kid called "this is the week that was." now, let's review this week that was. i arrived back in seattle and on the calendar were two bills. one was a bill to deal with, as mr. levin has suggested, the problems of workers who have been displaced by trade. the so-called trade adjustment act, t.a.a. . that was one bill and the other bill was to extend the patriot act. i don't know what the leadership on the other side was thinking. maybe they can't count, but the bill to extend the patriot act went down in flames. and they then pulled the bill on

extending t.a.a. that was tuesday. then we came to wednesday. that was the day they brought the bill in a meaningless bill missing with the united nations' funding that didn't save one single dollar and said we weren't going to pay our dues to that section of the united nations that somebody didn't like and so they decided to come out here and make a big show about the united nations. that bill went down in flames. now the week has not been a total loss. we did change the name of a post office. we did it on wednesday. and i think we got something to go home and talk to our people about in our districts. and now we're to thursday. here we are spending nine hours out here on a meaningless piece

of legislation. it is truly a sad day for the house that we are spending another day not helping the people of america. not helping the private sector create jobs, not doing what the people sent us here to do. early this morning, congressional representatives and staff came to work on capitol hill to work for the american people, it is the job every day for members and staff to oversee the agencies of the federal government, to oversee the regulations so that the common good is served. it doesn't require house resolution 72. we are here to track how money is being spent and that it's being done responsibly. that is the congresses' constitutional responsibility and has been for 224 years. you would have thought maybe the people on the other side would

have figured this out, mr. speaker. we stood out here and read the constitution. i guess for some of them, it was the first time they read it or weren't paying attention or something, because this resolution is simply restating what has always been our responsibility. it has been 100 days as i said for the republicans in control of the house, and they have done not one single thing to create a job, nada, nil, zilch, nothing. we have 14.9 million unemployed in this country. we have an intense economic competition with the rest of the world that we are in danger of losing if we don't get off our -- if we don't get moving. we have a home foreclosure crisis in this country.

we've got two wars, huge energy and environmental issues to deal with and an economic system that is falling further and further behind the rest of the world. we do not lead the world in college graduates. other countries are passing us because of our inaction and what do we do, the republicans say, let's go out and waste the 10 of february. now, instead the republicans are having us working two hole days to tell the house of representatives to do its job. for heavens sakes, what a silly piece of legislation. this bill is an insult to the american people and insult to the people who work here and they don't even seem to understand they're insulting themselves as if they didn't know what their jobs was.

like nero while rome is burning. the house is sitting here while millions are unemployed, selling their belongings and emptyying 401k's to stay afloat. in 1930, what people did was, they took what few belongings they had and put it on top of their car and drove out to california and found a job. every day, millions of americans can't move to take a new job because they can't sell their house, because their homes are under water. that's according to the banks. in seattle, one-third of the homes are under water. now, if you don't think some foreclosures are coming out of that, you don't understand how it works. there is a whole new class of -- underclass of unemployed,

undertrained americans who are not being helped to compete. while americans suffer, the republicans come out here with h.r. 72. they're going to do nothing. the republicans, the party of saying one thing and doing another, promise big action on jobs during the election. if you elect us, we will get this country rolling again. so they have taken control of the house and what are the american people getting? instead of helping the private sector with smart science, technology and energy reinvestment policy, we are considering republican legislation on porn. that makes a lot of sense if you don't have a job. instead of compassionate and ener getically helping the unemployed, they want to redefine the rape of women to

keep some women who get raped from getting an abortion. you will see that next week. where are the jobs bills? i have no idea. there are more 99ers every week. if you don't know what a 99er is on the other side, let me educate you. we have unemployment insurance for 99 weeks and when it runs out, you are done. and there are four or five people for every job that comes up in america. so if you go out looking for a job, you're likely, a one in four chance of having any chance of getting it. and these 99-weekers are piling up all over the country and they are running out of unemployment. instead of debating administration plans in afghanistan, iraq, republicans want to vote on meaningless

bills like the united nations that save no money and don't advance the u.s. interests in anything. the republicans ran on a slogan, mr. speaker, government spending kills jobs. they are the extreme party of everyone for themselves. no action for the common good. and now the republicans have responsibility. all we have -- all they have is the message machine. that's what this nine hours is about, just in case you haven't broken the code. they are all in their offices now, mr. speaker, cranking out press releases, i'm going to take on this regulation, i'm going to take on that regulation and somehow they think that those messages will get them re-elected in november of 2012. they are creating a paper blizzard, like we have had some snow around here.

well, this is a real blizzard. when you try to govern without ideas, it doesn't go over very well with the american public and slowly the leadership is hearing the to feedback. what's the new republican response? they say we need to retool our messaging. since we have to waste the american public's time on the floor today on this meaningless bill, i thought i should try to be helpful for the republican effort. it's my civic duty. as a member of the minority i should help the majority rule. now, the problem is that the republicans are having -- are having it as though they ran on a no big government is the problem, but that isn't true. big government is not the problem. no one wants big government. why would we want that for? we have been through t.s.a.

we don't want that stuff. the government is not the problem. the government is made up of americans, good americans, who are writing rules and regulations to do things that americans want. americans want clean water. they want to be able to drink the water. they want the water to irrigate their crops. they want water for a lot of things, and it takes regulation, because if you let anybody take as much water as they want, some people and very important things aren't going to get done. they want clean air. americans want clean air. they know there's an epidemic of asthma among children living in cities and they're worried about it, and they want regulations. they want regulations so you don't create an epidemic of youngsters with asthma who fill the emergency rooms every night

in hospitals in this country. the american people want fairness, they want the rule of law. they want laws fixed that don't work. sometimes you passed a law 10 years ago and seemed like a good idea. things ought to be changed and we ought to be doing that. but don't need house resolution 72 to tell you to do it. common sense would tell you to do that. and the american people need the collective help that we can give them. the american people want effective government that deals with people's problems. now, the republican fear and blame machine is an old, tired, failed philosophy that from time to time can be used to scare the american people in an election. they did it in 2004. remember the orange alerts and yellow alerts. oh, god, we have to have four more years of the same stuff and we got four more years of it. 2010, here they are again.

we were in the ways and means committee today doing oversight with a wrecking ball. let's wreck the bill that we passed last year on health care. now, bill frist, and you aren't going to call him a wild liberal. he used to be the majority leader in the senate. bill frist said to the republicans, mr. speaker, don't repeal it, fix it. but what we're doing today is getting ready to blow the bill out of the way so we can have the paul ryan road to the end of medicare and to a voucher system. paul ryan vouchers for every citizen in this country is the goal. and that oversight is really set to blow apart any chance of developing better law than we got through here last year. it would work better if both

sides worked together, no question about it. but if you are going to use a wrecking ball and try and put in a voucher system and say to all the old people in this country, hay, this is your voucher, $8,000. go out and find yourself an insurance company that wants to give you insurance. mr. speaker, consider that idea. i yeen, i don't know household the members' mothers and fathersr but when you get to be 75 or 80 and go out with an $8,000 voucher and try to buy insurance, you can't do it except by taking $5,000 or $6,000 out of your pocket. seniors in this country spend one-third of their income ol health care. they have plenty of skin in the game. they don't need any more. but the ways and means committee today is doing that rather than trying to figure out what it is

we can do to make the law better. there wasn't a single question about how can you make the law better. all it was was an attack on the man who ran c.m.s. the first question was, do you still believe that the national health system of great britain is the best thing under sliced bread? the question wasn't, doctor, how can we make this law work more effectively for the american people? there is an extreme agenda and won't be helped by retooling the message. now, the other thing that's kind of ridiculous about this whole thing is, we have an oversight committee on the ways and means committee. we have a very distinguished member from louisiana, dr. boustany is a very smart member of congress. he is the ranking member on the oversight committee. he does not need h.r. 72 to tell

him to do oversight. he is a very thorough man. he is a cardiac surgeon. i mean, come on. this man is smart, able and can see what the problems are and doesn't need this kind of 10 hours of out here flogging this bill so that we can then have our press releases. the american people deserve better than this. they deserve us to put positive proposals forward that will create jobs, that will deal with the foreclosures, that will deal with the health care problems, that will deal with the energy problems, will deal with what's happening in the world and what's going on overseas and we are about to see in the budget that comes out what the priorities of the republican party are. . the budget is a moral document and when you say what you really care about. and when you look at that

document, you will see what they really care about. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. speaker. returning to the subject of regulations and its impact on the creation of jobs and the need to create jobs, to create taxpayers, i would like to recognize for two minutes a distinguished new member of the ways and means committee, mr. smith from nebraska. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of today's resolution's for committees to review pending and proposed executive regulations. congress is charged with not only legislating but with also overseeing implementation of legislation. agencies continue to promulgate blapingette rules which ignore congressional intent. 43 major regulations published by executive regulations.

these regulations marginalize small businesses and communities which have less ability to absorb the cost of compliance. small towns in nebraska, for instance, are spending millions of dollars installing water treatment facilities and electric generation units to comply with the e.p.a. standards which continue to be arbitrarily changed regardless of the science. these people are in good faith purchasing lower emission units and want to comply with the law, mr. speaker. but cities and residents can no longer afford higher prices because of these arbitrary and inconsistent regulations. it's not fair. and it's not good government. i'd also like to touch on some medicare regulation which has the potential to disproportionately hurt rural hospitals. medication supervision requirements have a serious impact in my district and i'm sure in many others. for the last two years, medicare rules for outpatient hospital procedures have included a provision to require

a medical doctor be on site for even the simpleest of procedures. for example, a fleb out mist -- a phlebotomist taking a blood sample. many critical access hospitals in my district would not have the manpower to perform outpatient procedures on a regular basis. the result for patients with length and travel to larger cities for care be it routine care or otherwise. this regulation is also having a negative impact in more urban areas. yesterday i was speaking with a group of physicians in nebraska and one shared with me his ability to remotely order a c.t. scan at the hospital when he knows such a procedure is necessary. however, the hospital cannot begin to scan until -- scan itself until -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman yield? mr. davis: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. davis

mr. smith: however, the gentleman cannot provide the scan until he arrives at the hospital to see the scan and then perform the scan. as a member of the rains act i ask to curb the hampering of job creators and the growth of america's economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: it's a privilege to yield two minutes now to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee from minnesota, mr. paulson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise in support of this resolution which directs committees to review federal agency rules and regulations which indeed may unfairly harm theability to create jobs and grow our economy. i continue to hear on a pretty regular basis from my small businesses and community about

new rules and proposed regulations that shule could hamper their operations and opportunity for growth. i'm going to give a couple examples real quick. i've heard from financial service companies in my district about a rule the department of labor is proposing now that fundamentally changes a 35-year-old definition of fish -- of fiduciary under erisa. if implemented this new rule will cause a major disruption to the marketplace and definitely result in higher costs and severely limited access to much-needed products and services to consumers. i've also heard from some of my medical device companies in my district that are leading the world in new -- developing these new lifesaving technologies and there's a new rule now that's been proposed by the department of transportation which would require finished medical devices and other products that contain lithium batteries to now be shipped as hazardous cargo. this is going to have a devastating impact on the production of pacemakers, defib rators and neurostimulators.

this is a new requirement that would severely disrupt the medical industries just-in-time delivery system and lead to bottlenecks in the supply chain and delay access to care for patients all over the country even though these devices pay no demonstrable safety risk. it isn't just medical devices, mr. speaker, the regulation will have a significant impact on shipping of everyday technologies. all in all, it's estimated these new regulation alone will cost $1 billion annually to the economy and these businesses. mr. speaker, these are just a few of the examples, and we heard others tonight as some of the burdensome regulations that are out there and being proposed and clearly shows the need to -- clearly outlines the need for oversight and reform. i ask for support of the resolution and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker,, how many more speakers does the other side have?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky, how many? mr. davis: i'm going to be the final speaker. is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. mcdermott: i'll close and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker,, i'm just sitting here thinking about this whole business about regulations. since i've been in congress, when i arrived here, we were in the midst of the savings and loan crisis which caused this country something like $50 billion or something to bail ourselves out of. it wasn't the fact we didn't have the right rules and regulations, we just weren't enforcing them. then we had the enron that went on down in texas and had the exxon valdez and you look at all these issues. we need regulation and enforcement to make sure the people are protected.

it is our job in part to protect the american people from the capitalist system. the capitalist system is not bad. it simply doesn't have any morals. it is designed to make money. that's all it's about. and the regulations that are put in are in large measure to protect the american people from the excesses of the economic system. and if we don't do that, we don't do our constituents what they sent us here to do which is to represent them and protect them. with think -- we think about protection in terms of things overseas and missiles flying in from somewhere and all that kind of stuff but there's more damage done to american people by what happens here in this country by our own companies to the water and the air and the land and -- and the air we

breathe. so it is very important that we do this. we should be doing continuous oversight and in some instances we should be tightening the regulations. the banking system that collapsed, it collapsed because we allowed wall street to have a heyday with derivatives and said, you know, do whatever you think is right. hah. what they thought was right, that to gamble with our pensions and our savings and the whole system collapsed. and we're digging our way out of it, and to come out here and say what we need is to remove regulations is simply not -- doesn't make sense and it shouldn't make sense to anybody who thinks about it for one minute. and i urge my colleagues to vote against this. it's useless. it's stupid.

every committee already has an oversight subcommittee and they will do it. and i think that there is no reason to pass this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. by the sum degree of irony in the gentleman's comments, anybody saying we need to do away with regulation was stupid because the president of the united states stood in this chamber last month and was citing specific regulations that were redundant or were inappropriate. the resolution that we've been debating tonight is a critical step towards restoring our economy and getting americans back to work. i'd like to point some context out on this. i think we have 100% agreement in the chamber tonight we want clean water and we want clean air. i'm a father of an asthmatic child, two asthmatic children, i might add, who has been up all night and made the trips to the e.r. and understand this. but there's a significant difference between the context

of application there and dealing with some of the changes and the moving standards and regulatory community that have huge economic impact on our communities. i'd like to cite three brief examples of different context of regulations that need to be modernized, or changed or have lost their context. again, we're not talking about an anti-regulation issue here. the fact is that regulations have never been aggressively attacked. what happens is we layer another regulation on top of an existing regulation. we increase the complexity of that and create new organizations that do the same thing, costing more money, creating uncertainty. and i think we have common ground on the need for that reform. but let me give you the first example. clean air is a great concern to me. i grew up around the steel and the mining industry as a small boy on the other side of the tracks and got to see the bad things that were done when the e.p.a. came into being. there were some good starts. ironically the real efforts to

true remediation began in the states, operation scar lift in pennsylvania changed the way hand was treated and much of that was copied by the federal government and changed our community demonstrably. but those days are long gone, the good old days. the intrusiveness of the bureaucracy is different to a greater degree. the marathon oil refinery in kentucky spent tens of -- tens of millions of dollars in compliance with existing regulations and long-term capital investments were made to deal with sulfur and nitrous oxide and mercury, other chemicals that were in potential emission in water and in the air. and then after the huge multiyear capital investments, the ball was moved again. it has crippled the ability of that specific facility to grow and to create jobs. this is what i'm talking about is context and predictability when you have to invest and overseeing long-term capital investment plans in the manufacturing industry, when you have to take 10 years.

you cannot afford to have that lack of predictability. that's what we're talking about. at a closer level to home we talk about veterans a lot here and prescription drug problems, drug addiction, issues. that's something i care very much about. growing newspaper a dysfunctional household and seeing the worst of substance abuse or substance addiction in family members, i can say as somebody who has volunteered for over 30 years to help people so escape from these kinds of things that regulation in fact is helping to create a worse problem. we work very closely with the veterans administration, a former army ranger myself i care very much about our veterans coming home and the one thing i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, addressing properly here, what i would say in these lines, we do have a prescription drug diversion problem with older veterans in certain parts of the country. i was approached by a group of doctors from the veterans administration who shared with me that they had been banned by the veterans administration general counsel from using the drug registries that are in the state of indiana and the state of kentucky as well as all

other stays -- states in the union that have these registries from simply checking to make sure the patients weren't seeing a civilian doctor in another state or in kentucky and then going to the v.a. to get a double or triple doseage of the same pain medications like coxy codone and getting it on the streets or using it to some degree trfment the doctors said i want to make sure they obtain the best health care. however, i spoke with the head of the national drug policy at the white house personally about this and he said his hands were tied and he's looking into that. finally, i'll give an example -- all this impacts jobs ultimately. finally, i'll give a context of a small business owner who gets trapped in this before fully closing. we have lots of great innovative small business owners who go out and see an opportunity and take a risk, usually with their life savings which wasn't much. we only had a few thousand dollars that started our

business that became successful and i supported a number of families for many years before i came to congress. my friend nick bell who started braxton's cleaners was an entrepreneur who wanted to take a chance and build a dream with that. his customer service is outstanding. and people flock to him at the responsiveness, the creativity, the initiative, the kindness of his people. he implemented home delivery, suddenly wanted to set up satellites. so many people were coming to him for business he realized he needed to put in another dry cleaning machine in place. . he suddenly found out as he bumped up against the division of water and environmental protection agency he had to do a soil sampling under the concrete pad in his building before putting the second machine in. what he didn't know along the way was a decision was made in another federal agency that dry cleaning fluid was put on a list of car sin agains. you would have to drink about 80

gallons to create the chemical in your body to cause cancer in the first place. here's the context of why we have to address regulations and i'll point this out. mr. bell found out that one teaspoon of water under 14 bore holes. 17 parts per million of dry cleaning fluid. they said you have to remediate this. mr. bell said i can't afford to do that. the response from the compassionate federal agency that cares about jobs, if you don't remediate it, we are going to shut you down. he was going to have his business shut down and he had to spend his life savings of $60,000 to clean up one teaspoon of water. and took him years to recover. i care about workers. i care about those.

my grandfather was a mine inspector. i care about those issues and it's incorrect to try and correct this demonization. we have regulations that not only impede jobs but make it so complex. the more complicated you make something, the more likely you will have areas. thus, many of the things that have been cited that we need more regulations that we have gotten so many, it can become arbitrary. we need to address these issues and in a manner that is devoid and a technical notion of what they say and let's measure the right things because we don't do that. what worked in 1960 is not necessarily applicable with the technology and tools today. reviewing current and proposed rules is the first step. we should do it because successful businesses and schools and institutions, even, i guarantee you the champion

green bay packers review their playbook to make sure they were adaptive in that great game we saw last week. reviewing is a necessary step and it will not hinder economic growth but help it and achieve people to fulfill the spirit of regulations and prosper americans. we are eager to do our part in this task. next step is to change the way major rules take effect. we need more accountability up here. that's nonpartisan. in the last administration, i'm sure the gentleman and i could find plenty of opportunity to point out regulations that were against the will of congress that were being implemented regardless of who was in the majority here. we should embrace that. to provide greater transparency and accountability to this process, i look forward to the house moving forward with the act which will be a complement to h.res. 72. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution as a critical

first step of opening the eyes of the congress, opening the eyes of the american public of the impact of these regulations and alleviate job creators from not the burden of legitimate safety stands, of legitimate standards to benefit our communities but the nonvalue-added overhead that prevent hiring and create unpredictability. let's move forward and remove the unnecessary regulations and create jobs and put america back to work. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 119. further consideration on this resolution is postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor the 141st anniversary of colorado state university located in fort collins, colorado. on february 11, 1870, colorado governor edward mccook established the state agricultural college in fort collins. in its 141 years, colorado state university has grown to 26,000 students, 1,400 faculty members and one of the nation's leading research universities. on average, c.s.u.'s expenditures top $138 million

annually. to this day, colorado state university still mapets the commitment of a state agricultural college and provides countless support for promoting economic development throughout rural communities in colorado. c.s.u. has over 90,000-plus alumni that lives in the state accounting for $4.1 billion in household income for colorado. c.s.u. alumni includes governors, olympic gold medalists, teachers, researchers and artists. i'm proud to call myself a colorado state university anumberus and recognize their 141 years in excellence in education and research. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further requests for one-minute speeches?

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. platts of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. aiken, is recognized for 18 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. and congratulations. you look good up in the chair there. and we're going to have a chance to talk for just a few minutes about an interesting topic and something on the minds of americans everywhere and that's about jobs and about the deficit and about federal spending and what we have to do in those areas. and i think sometimes it is helpful when you hear so much detail, that you need to step back at the 30,000 foot view and

say what's the big picture of what's going on here. i have one of those traditional pie-type charts, and it has an overview of the total spending of the federal government in the year 2010. and so what i want to do is just take a look at that and talk about what that means relative to the problems we have in overspending in the federal government. also, it connects to unemployment in this sense. when the federal government spends too much money and too intrusive and takes too much in taxes, all of those things destroy the jobs created by small businesses. let's be completely clear, we heard stories about unemployment and these heartless republicans. the problem is that if you destroy businesses, you don't have any businesses, you don't have any jobs. and that's what we have been doing. how is it we destroy businesses?

one, we overtax them. two, we overregulate them with red tape. three, we make it hard from a liquidity point of view to get loans from banks because the officers are second-guessing the loans. fourth, we created an era of uncertainty because we don't know what the silly government is going to do next and last of all, we spend money like mad which makes the economy that much harder for our businesses to compete in a world competitive environment. let's look now at this pie chart and there is something here when you start to think about it is really a little bit on the frightening side. let's look at some of the big chunks of money. bottom down here is defense. constitution of the united states says that the congress will provide for the national defense. it's the one main thing that congress is supposed to do. states can't do it.

locales and something has to be done by the federal government. and the constitution says to provide for the national defense. $692 billion here in the 2010 budget. there's defense. and this over here is the nondefense, what's called discretionary. these are the funds that congress spends every year, and that's $666 billion. and this includes things like the education department or the energy department, department of commerce, jails and prisons, things like that. all of those, park services would be in this nondefense discretionary area. these two, kind of similar size running in there about $1.5 trillion in total. now, the other one i want to call to your attention is all the rest of these.

this is social security. this is medicare. this is medicaid. and then -- so what these thingsr a lot of times people call them mandatory spending, what does that mean? what it means is that a long time ago, congress passed these laws and the law works like a little machine and the machine spits out dollar bills whenever anybody meets a certain criteria. so we call it an entitlement. and these little machines are spitting out and printing dollars for the congress and doesn't have to do anything at all and the federal government is spending lots of money. how much money? social security, $700 billion, $519 in medicare. $273. a little thing that works like an entitlement is the debt. if we sell a treasury bill, we have to pay the interest on it. when we do this, we get the

interest. and other mandatory things, they are other kinds of entitlements, not just social security, medicare, medicare, sship and additional entitlements. these things here when you put the things together, this is a spooky number. these things come out not too far away, maybe $2.3 trillion. and what does that mean, $2.3 trillion? that is the amount of revenue in a given year for the federal government. so what's happened is, all these entitlements now, plus the interest on the debt have gotten to the point that they're chewing up all the money that the federal government takes in in taxes in a given year. well, the question is, how about defense, how about nondefense discretionary? the point of the matter is, you could zero this out and zero this out and these together are

using all of the money that the federal government is taking in in revenue in a given year. now, that is kind of scary. what that says is, we are starting to run deficits of over $1 trillion. in fact, the obama deficits for the last two years have been about $1.5 trillion. that's a lot of money. that's three times bigger deficit than president bush's worst budget deficit. you take his worst deficit, which is about $450 billion and we are talking the last two years, we are running $1.5 trillion. this is what's going on. if you are like an awful lot of americans, you want to solve a problem. we have a problem where we are apparently spending too much money. you say, what are our alternatives? how do we approach this?

i'm thankful this evening that we've got one of our very bright young freshman congressmen from the state of colorado. scott is here to join us, scott tipton. scott, i want to make sure you know, any time you want to jump in here, you can talk about this. what's your reaction? you are knew here in d.c. you look at the size of the entitlement that's the same size of what we take in for a whole year, isn't that a little bit of a spooky thing to be walking down here and running into this as a problem? mr. tipton: it truly is. and we just finished over in the third congressional district of colorado, our district is about the size of florida, fifth largest congressional district in the united states, which is not an entire state. massive land area, diversity. we traveled throughout the third

congressional district this past week and put on 1,500 miles, 30-plus meetings throughout that district. the frustration level of the american people, the people of my district, they are understanding of the challenges that we face as a nation. the american people get it. and what they want to see out of washington is that washington truly gets it. as we're looking at your chart right now and we go to the revenues that are coming and spending going out, looking at $1.5 trillion deficit that we are facing. that is going to be going on top of a debt of $14.3 trillion, an unsustainable glide path that is going to take us to economic ruin. as i traveled through my district, we found people who understood that it's important to be able to build for the future. we challenged them and they rose to that challenge. when we brought it down to

taking a picture out of their own wallet and looking a a picture of their child or grandchild. we were raised with that concept of the american dream. we always believed that we would have it better than our parents and our grandparents before them. . the challenge that lies before us is to deliver that dream to our chairman and grandchildren. i was in a conversation with a gentleman from craig, colorado, born 1924. in this conversation he recounted his life and talked about living through the great depression, obviously world war ii. and we were talking about the economic circumstances of our time, and he said, scott, this is the challenge of your generation. the question yet to be answered is, will we rise to meet that chalepping? -- challenge? we've seen a government, and none of us can question, the intent has always been good. and i will challenge anyone who will demonize others for their

intent. because i think for whatever program, there was a good thought behind it but the problem is, is as americans when we pull that checkbook out of our hip pocket, we know there's only so much money. and if we exceed that amount, there are going to be consequences that have to be paid. that's the reality that the american people expect us to truly deal with here in washington. and they know that there are going to be some sacrifices but those sacrifices are going to be in the standpoint that we have overspent. we're going to have to cut back. we have to be looking to the future. we have to be standing for our children, for our grandchildren to deliver that dream that we've always believed as the american promise. mr. akin: you know, scott, i heard you talking and it kind of reminded me, i spent a few years back, i spent a fair amount of time with the boy scouts what you i had four kids that went through the boy scout program and got to be eagle scouts. one of the things we used to always say, to me at least it paints kind of a picture, you'd

move in with the boy scouts to a camping area and these kids, some of them a the wet behind the ears but they'd get the tents all assembled and they'd have a little bit of fun spraying some hairspray into the fire and things that little kids do. but yet when it came time to clean up, we had this one rule and that is you're going to leave the campsite better than the way you found it. you know, and our forefathers, my immediate parents, dad fought in world war ii, and he had the attitude that we got a job to get done and we're going to go over and get the job done. and they came back with the attitude that they wanted to give you and i a better life and better opportunities than what they had. and that's always been -- we always wanted to pass that down. i've got some kids of my own and i want to pass to them a better america. and yet what we're doing is we're passing them this tremendous debt. and we're the first generation that's really passing a worst

america off to our kids than what we had before. and i think that's why your constituents elected you to come down here and get this thing straightened out. mr. tipson: it really is. i believe -- i grew up with, and perhaps you did, too, my parents raised me with phrases like yankee ingenuity, american know-how. and i think when you look at the entire mesh of what's been coming out of washington, frankly, over the course of the last 10 years, we've seen an overreach of government which has stifled american creativity. i'm a small businessman. not a career politician. i've actually gotten my hands dirty. i created a business from the ground up. i have risked. we had to work hard. but one thing i learned being a small businessman is you have to be nimble, you have to be creative. in terms of addressing the problems. one of the real challenges we face is there seems to be a mentality in washington, d.c. that once a program starts, it

never ends. we will build on it, we will expand it, we will create redundancies and build out that bureaucracy. in the private sector we do things a little different. periodically we audit. we take a look to see what we are doing and is it achieving the goals we are trying to achieve? if not, we eliminate it and start to approach it from a different fashion. to be able to make it work. i think it's that sort of creativity, that sort of nimbleness which washington lacks and it's what the american people are truly crying for. they want to see us be innovative. if it isn't working, don't do it. you know, ronald reagan made the comment, he said the nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. nothing has ever been said that was probably more true here on earth. mr. akin: let's take a look at this problem because you have all these entitlements and this represents all the money that comes in in a year and these things here are beyond and yet

we're thinking you've got to do defense and you've got to have the park open or you have to have a prison open. so how are you going to deal with this problem? let's take a look at the next chart. this is an optimistic way of saying it. this is medicaid, medicare, social security. and it shows over time, this is 1965. and over time these things are getting bigger because some of us baby boomers are coming along and put more demand in the system. but this is an optimistic chart because the problem with it is you don't have the other entitlements in here or the debt service. so what the problem is, if you put those other things in, what we're saying with this first pie chart is that as you take a look at the revenue from taxes, it's averaging about 18%, so here comes the revenue along at an average of 18%, and here we are at the 2011 or so in here,

and you put these other things in and it comes all the way up to here. we don't have any room for -- zero defense, we can take every soldier off the field and every ship out of the sea, every plane out of the air. we can rezero defense and all the other discretionary spending and boom, here we are. our entitlements have eaten up everything the government takes. so, you know, one of the things i find amusing and i've had to struggle with a little bit, too, is these -- the idea of how you lose weight. you get older -- i used to eat the double pecan pie ala mode up to my mid 40's but as you get older you have to watch that. there's all these ways of packaging weight loss programs but the hard facts are there's two variables, one is how much exercise you get and how much food you eat. and unfortunately, all of these supposedly complicated budget things come down to two things, how much money you're going to spend and how much revenue you've got coming in.

and the problem is here, this 18%, i'd like to talk to this in a couple minutes. i don't think we can increase the amount of federal revenue that much. maybe we can do some things to get that to improve but that's kind of -- you could raise taxes but the trouble is you raise taxes, you do just what you're saying, you crash the economy, the businesses close, there aren't jobs, you're not picking up any tax revenue so you can raise taxes but it doesn't actually get you more money. and yet we've got all of this spending going on which says it's a little bit like if you can't do any more exercise, you're going to have to stop eating. we're going to have to stop spend on all these things. jump in, scott. mr. tipton: first of all, just to set the plate. i know you'll join with me on this. we have an obligation to our senior citizens that are receiving social security, to those who are about to receive it. and we also have another obligation again to our children and my grandchildren.

and we need to be able to have that conversation in terms of how are we going to make sure their opportunities are going to be the equivalent or even better than what our current senior citizens are receiving? you show a pattern right now in terms of average revenues in relation to expenditures, particularly as baby boomers come online. and that is going to be something that we are going to have to deal with as a congress, and i think it's something certainly that they are expecting leadership out of washington. we are compassionate people. we will stand up for our senior citizens. it's a pledge i made that i will keep for our senior citizens that are receiving social security. but i'm also making a pledge to our children and grandchildren. we are going to be looking at ways to be able to address this so that their future can be as bright and we're going to be looking at a better america as well. mr. akin: right. i think a lot of ways you hear

people talking about how do you get into this kind of problem, you know, some people who were already very senior and dependent on some of these things, you're probably not going to touch their things at all. but it may be that the people who are not, maybe people in their 30's and 40's, you put a different kind of program together, and something that may -- and may give them some alternatives to choose this, this or this. those are the kinds of ideas you've got to look at. but we have to be honest with ourselves. and i think that i -- i wasn't really aware of how bad these numbers were even though i've been here a while until a few months ago. that these entitlements are totally absorbing even now all of our revenues here. and so really, this is a little bit like the guy that's overweight, and he's got a choice, you're either going to have to reduce the spending here or you're going to have to somehow get in more revenue. and the interesting fact is on this, that there is evidence to

suggest that when you drop taxes, you actually get more revenue. which is as a business by you probably understand that to some degree, scott. so here's an example of this is this top marginal tax rate. it was back here in 1960. it was up at 90%. the guys making the most money. and as this thing was brought down, ronald reagan brought it down a lot. what happens, you see, is that the total federal tax receipts actually increase. and a lot of times it seems like how in the world can you drop taxes and get more revenue from the government? but, scott, say you were sort of a king for a day and you had to put a tax on a loaf of bread, enough for a year, and you have to get your maximum revenue for your kingdom taxing bread. and you think i'll put a penny tax on it, and you think no, $10. and you think if i put $10 not enough people will buy the

bread, but with a penny, and you come up with a certain point you come up with an optimum tax. if you raise it you lose revenue and if you reduce it -- there's an optimum point. what the laugher curve shows us is as we drop taxes we actually get more revenue into the federal government. so to a degree we can use growth of the revenue to deal with some of the problem. but the trouble is, it's not anywhere near going to deal with all of it which means we have to cut, no matter what you do, you're going to have to cut spending and particularly that entitlement spending. so we have to do that sensitively and carefully. it's going to be politically controversial but we've got to do something. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. akin: i thank you, mr. speaker, you've done an admirable job and thank you very much, scott tipton from colorado. a great new congressman. and the very top of the evening to the rest of my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 18 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker, for recognizing me. i'm coming down to the floor tonight to speak on behalf of the progressive caucus, to talk about the real situation when it comes to our nation's economy. first of all, the republican caucus essentially created this massive budget deficit themselves through two wars and a massive tax cut for the very wealthiest americans, the people who didn't need a big tax cut, didn't ask for a big tax cut but got one anyway and demanded, in exchange for poor people who are unemployed, getting unemployment extension, demanded in exchange for your unemployment extension that the litschest -- that the richest of the rich get a bunch of tax breaks or get them extended. and that even when they die, they don't even have to -- they

can just pass on massive amounts of money to their heirs and never have to pass -- never have to do anything to help the society that helped them make all that money in the first place. i'm not talking about taking it all, i'm talking about something called the estate tax and something that every society has, and it just makes sense. you have heard, mr. speaker, a lot of things that just ain't so, aren't true and are just invented. we see our republican colleagues saying oh, my god, we've got -- they say very piously, we've got to make sure we don't pass on this deficit to our children, our grandchildren -- well, they created the deficit. they created the deficit. through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people and an iraq war which never, ever shoot have been fought. so now what they say is the richest of the rich don't have to chime in, they don't have to help out. they don't have to give up anything. they just want to take it out

of the poorest of the poor. and now they want to say oh, we have to have an adult conversation with our seniors. what does that mean, mr. speaker? that's insulting to me. to say to a 65-year-old person who has worked their whole life, who maybe got pain in their back because of the hard work they have done and tell them we have to have an adult conversation. i hope every senior in this country turns to the republican caucus and says, young lady, don't you tell me about having an adult conversation. i'm the adult around here. . mr. speaker, i want to say, an adult conversation means you are going to cut benefits for people hole worked hard and paid into social security. that's not fair and doesn't make any sense. and by the way, social security doesn't contribute to the budget deficit. we actually borrow from social

security. the social security is something that is the crown jewel of the american politics and the crown jewel of our nation together. it is one of the finest programs that our country has ever seen and something that says our seniors will not live their golden years in poverty. it's an income source that we can say it is something how we honor our people who have been able to stick around and carve a path for the rest of us. and some of our folks want to have an adult conversation with them? that is absurd and we ought to call it out what it is. in a few days, we are going to be dealing with the budget. in a few days, we're going to deal with the c.r. c.r. is a continuing resolution and the c.r. represents the republican pinching slip for america. the republican caucus had their

way, against regulation. they are saying they don't need to be regulated. they promoted no regulation of big business and what it resulted in was the worst financial crisis since the great depression, the worst one. financial crisis, housing crisis, caused because the people who are supposed to mind the store refuse to. they figure that everybody -- all the folks who work in our nation's economy, the business people, the industry folks would just always do the right thing. the market would solve every question. well, the market didn't solve every question. markets are important things, as people know. and they can be extremely helpful. but they need folks to regulate them, because they are a social activity that human beings conduct in. and when human beings get

together and do something, some will do good things and some will not. that's why we have the police. and in every market, most people do the right thing and some people do not. but we said no regulation. so the cop on the beat was drawn and good actors in the housing market were getting outcompeted because the bad ones were willing to do anything and it was a race to the bottom. then after the republicans pushed their philosophy which failed us and that's why under president bush, there needed to be a massive bailout of wall street, because that philosophy failed us. all of a sudden, these democrats act like it is the democrats' fault that the budget deficit is here. president obama literally saved this economy. we saved the american auto industry. you would think they would say thank you.

we saved goldman sachs. we saved all these big banks. now you would think by the bonuses they are handing out to each other, they would have more appreciation than they have shown so far, but literally, literally helped save this economy. private job growth has grown up. when the republicans had the president and both houses of congress, president bush's last month in congress, we saw 741,000 jobs lost, losing millions of jobs under bush and then as soon the democrats get in, we begin to add jobs back on, but we didn't add them on fast enough. part of the reason is we couldn't get cooperation from the republican caucus. but the fact is, now that they have gone out there and told the american people, it's not health care, it's death panels. oh, it's not financial reform,

it's the democrats' bailout. the bailout happened in the bush white house was in operation during that. and they bamboozled a lot of folks. first thing when they get in, first thing they do is read the constitution. there's nothing wrong with that. i'm a lawyer, taught constitutional law. but i can read the constitution on my own time. i didn't need to take up floor time for that. you think they would get the americans back to work and getting jobs after that. guess again. what they do next after that is, they go through -- they want to repeal health care. they want to repeal seniors' ability to get that doughnut hole closed up. repeal seniors' ability to be able to get some real help when

it comes to meeting their basic needs in the health care system. they want to get rid of the system to squeeze out waste, fraud and abuse out of medicare so we can make the program more solvent and to last longer. they want to repeal all that and repeal health care. senate wasn't going to go for it and the president wasn't going to go for it and they knew it and knew it, but didn't stop them. the republican caucus went on with health care repeal any way, wasting hours on the floor when we could have been talking about jobs. so, first of all, we take up floor time to read the constitution, which you should do on your own any way and then take time with this repeal effort, which they knew wasn't going anywhere. we haven't dealt with jobs yet. it is february 10 and haven't seen the republican caucus take up a single measure that would put anyone back to work.

and i hope the american people are watching and paying attention very closely, because they promised a lot and so far they have given absolutely nothing. the other day, they brought in a measure to try to take money from the united nations. the problem facing the american people is not the united nations . it's no jobs. but our friends in the majority caucus, they went out and told the american people some stuff and took advantage of some people's pain and got themselves elected. and then the first thing they do is abandon any effort to get american people back to work. so this week, we have had nothing on jobs. this week, we have had nothing on jobs at all. and next week they aren't going to do nothing on jobs, but putting in policies that are going to get rid of jobs. so, let's talk about it. the republican pink slip for america will further devastate

the economy. the best way to get the economy moving is to create jobs. you hear republicans say, well, the government doesn't create jobs. tell that to a police officer, a teacher, a firefighter, a construction worker, tell that to somebody who makes sure that our streets and our street lights are in good working order. of course the government creates jobs. the government creates rules that help the private sector make jobs. this is just a fact. you want to balance the budget and deal with the deficit, which i certainly do? start putting america back to work. but that's not work the republicans are doing. what they're doing is they are going after public employees and are going after programs that provide important and vital services to american people provided by public employees. republicans are giving a pink slip to america as they try to

go after the public employees as they try to stop and even end up cutting people who provide important public services to our country. the american people voted for jobs and all they got was a pink slip. the american budget cuts, which we are about to hear serious rumbles about, means cuts if you are a nurse, teacher, firefighter, police officer or a construction worker. but not only that, not only that, we're talking about folks, more than that. we're talking about -- here's a list in front of my face. i have a list of 70 spending cuts to be included in the continuing resolution coming up next week if they can get around to it. they have been having problems with that recently. drug control in coastal emergency, $30 million. they want to cut that. wait a minute.

there are people who make sure when there are coastal emergencies, there are people who will help people who are in trouble. this isn't some nameless, faceless program but a hard-working professional who works on our nation's coast to make sure things are not dangerous. that's $30 million. how many jobs does that cut, but it cuts $30 million from the budget. energy efficiency and renewable energy, $899 million, $899 million cut out of energy efficiency and renewable energy in a time when we need to be going toward green jobs and doing more with efficiency. we need to do something -- we need to weatherize those old, windy homes so we don't need much energy to heat them up or cool them down in a time when we are driving toward the future, when nations around the world

are gening themselves, our republican caucus says cut $899 million. that is $899 million which employs american public worker, american public and some private workers to help provide important services. they want to cut the office of science by $1.1 billion. science and innovation. where do the members of the republican caucus think the jobs are going to be? and if you cannot get people to work, then you can't get them to pay taxes. if you can't get them to pay taxes, then we aren't going to lower the deficit. but, still, they want to cut the office of science $1.1 billion. the internal revenue service, they want to cut the internal revenue service -- aren't those the guys that go get the money to deal with the budget deficit, mr. speaker? they want to cut it $593

million. they want to cut the people who actually go get the money to help fill the budgetary holes. that is absolutely not logical. they want to deal with the folks who don't pay their taxes, they want to get rid of the people who go get that revenue. international trade administration. now our country could do much more in the area of exports, international trade administration helps produce and promote exports. that's us selling things to foreigners, which makes money for our country and helps push down the deficit. they say, cut it. they don't have a vision for growing our economy. they have a vision, a dark vision of just cutting it, reducing it, lowering it. they have a defensive view of america and not a bold, courageous view of america.

the cops program, the cops program, community-oriented policing, they want to cut it $600 million. how many of our nation's brave members of law enforcement wearing those blue uniforms protecting our streets all over this country are employed through a cops grant? quite a few. the republican caucus says, get rid of them. what about nasa? space exploration? so many important things come from space exploration, satellites, all kinds of important things we have learned here and get from nasa, $379 million, get rid of it. the e.p.a., you would think we could keep the program that keeps us breathing clean air, nope. got to get rid of those. and i could right on down the line, what about w.i.c.

women, infants and children. w.i.c. a poor mom and her kids better figure out what to do because the republican caucus wants to cut $758 million out of that program. that's just cold-hearted and mean right there. and let's keep marching down the list. h.u.d. community development block grant which has helped cities all over this country apply funds to problems that are facing them and doing it on a flexible basis, because it's not just this program or that you give the city block grant money, they decide how to apply those funds. cut that, $530 million. liheap contingency fund, this is people who live in cold northern states can have some heat. now, you want to cut that program so people can be in the cold?

literally in the cold and figuratively, too. what about the drinking water state revolving fund? i'm a big fan of clean drinking water, mr. speaker. and the republican caucus wants to get rid of that one to the tune of $250 million. it goes on and it goes on and it goes on and on and on. important programs that are literally powered by men and women who work for the federal government tossed away and will result in the pain and injury to this very fragile economy. you know, people listening to this broadcast tonight should know that if i'm a public employee and somebody else works for a private employer and we both go to the local grocery store and by groceries, the dollars are spent the same way. you cut all these people out, you are going to cut consumer

demand and send this economy back into recession. i heard a faint tapping and yield back to the gentleman. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman from minnesota. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for a motion. mr. ellison: move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

this would cut $58 billion. >> with that enough to satisfy did republican study committee? >> at this point, it has angered republicans to say it would impact the day-to-day operations. >> where with the cuts be made?

>> they are focused on domestic discretionary operations which is a small slice of the budget. this accounts for about 30% of spending which is like a housing aid, to the research. >> how did the house speaker response to questions. >> he was asked about this a lot and at this point the issue has not been resolved so he basically ducked the question and he reaffirmed his commitment to make serious cuts and bring it to the floor of the house next week. >> the cuts will be part of the funding measure for the last seven months, that is supposed to be debated in the house next week. is that debate still on track? >> it might be pushed back a few days because the appropriations committee had hoped to release the details of the plan but they are being sent back to the

drawing board so it has to go back to the entire federal budget and find more cuts. >> what will you be looking for as the republican majority tries to carry out their campaign pledge to cut spending? >> the plan that was unveiled yesterday would have zeroed out programs from things like high- speed rail to the community- oriented policing organization. if they are going to dramatically increase the amount of money they cut from the budget come the other programs will be cut entirely. >> thank you for joining us. >> the patriot act passed after the 9/11 made easier if to investigate terrorism. rough today onrorisbill th a website where you can look at the time lines and the

transcript for every session. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," collecting you with journalists, politicians, and officials. weeknights, hearings and policy forms. on the weekend, you can see our interview weekends. on saturdays, "the communicators,", on weekends, prime minister's questions from the house of commons. washington your way, a public service credit to buy american cable companies. -- created by american cable companies. >> tonight, the egyptian president of the night calls from protesters that he would

resign from the post he has held for 30 years. instead, he proposed reforms to the egyptian constitution and announced that the military would oversee the transition of power between now and of timbre. after president mubarak, we will hear from vice president omar suleiman. this is 20 minutes. >> i address you today. to you in tahrir square and nationwide, i address you all with a speech from the heart. ace speech from the father to

his children, his sons and daughters. i take pride in you. you are calling for the change to the better, appealing to the same feeling of a bright future and shaping such a future. i tell you for any thing that all of those who --, their blood will not go down the drain. i confirm that i will not relent to penalize all of those responsible. i will hold accountable those who committed -- to the most severe sentences according to the law i address the families of those innocent victims that i felt a deep pain. the same pain that you felt.

my heart went out and i felt the pain as you did. i tell you that my response to your message and demands is a commitment that cannot be waived. i am totally determined and adamant to fulfil all of the promises genuinely, honestly, and seriously. i am keen on implementing all of these promises with no bad blood. this commitment stems from my from convictions of the genuineness and the proof of your intentions and your movement and that your demands are -- mistakes are likely in any political regime. it is important to confess

mistakes and rectify such mistakes and penalize those responsible. i tell you, my fellow countrymen, in my capacity as president, i cannot find any embarrassment at all in listening to the youth of my homeland and responded to them. however, this comes from the wrongdoing and i will not accept to be the dictator. no matter what the source is or what the justification is. my fellow countrymen, my fellow citizens, i announced in very plain unequivocal words that i will not run in the coming presidential elections.

i have offered -- to the nation through times of war and peace. i will adhere to this position and i also announced that i will remain adamant to continue to fulfill my responsibilities -- protecting the constitution, until the authority and power is handed over to those elected by the people in the coming september and the fair and free elections and where all the guarantees for transparency and integrity will be secured. this is the oath i've taken before god and the nation and i will continue to keep this oath until we come out with the people -- i have laid down its

decision to accept the current crisis and to realize the demands voiced by the citizens in compliance with a constitutional legitimacy without undermining the constitution and in a manner that ensures the stability of our society and the -- of the demands. at the same time, laying down a framework to be agreed upon for the peaceful fans edition of power. i laid down his vision. committed to responsibility to take the country from these harsh moments and i will continue to observe the implementation step by step, hour by air -- hour by hour. we will look at every person who

is keen on helping the people's interest. this is to ensure the implementation that will be implemented by the armed forces. the people have called for change. together with all political forces and this dialogue has yielded preliminary agreement in stances and opinions. we can lay our foot on the right path and we should continue marching into this path to move from the guidelines of the agreement into a clear road back and a specific timetable.

that will go day-by-day. that is a peaceful transition of power from today until september. this national dialogue has converged on the committee to examine the constitutional amendments. i am keen on the formation of these two committees to be comprised of the attendance and transparency, taurus, legal professionals. in addition to those that have

fallen and the tragic events which lists -- and shocked the conscience of the people, i handed down the orders to speed up the investigations in the past week and prefer the outcome to take the necessary legal action. yesterday, i received the first report on at the current institutional amendments as proposed by the committee that i had formed from the taurus and legal exports watched from the -- and legal experts. in response to the report laid by the committee and their recommendations and by virtue of their powers, -- like today

proposed the amendment of six constitutional order to express -- i proposed six constitutional amendments. in addition to the annulment of -- of the constitution, confirming that i'm prepared to propose at a later stage to amend the articles as per the recommendations of the constitutional committee as required. these amendments, the top priority amendments aimed at streamlining and simplifying the community.

we will insure the supervision of the elections. it is also discussed -- it to rule upon the members of the parliament and the proposal made to scrap article 179 of the constitutiona. it aims at creating balance between -- to clear the way for scrapping the emergency laws once a the ability is restored. my fellow countrymen, the party now is to restore confidence

among all egyptians, confidence and trust in the party. confidence in that the change and transformation we spotted can never be reversed. egypt is braving through hard times. we cannot tolerate the consensus to continue. our economy has suffered damage. it will end up in a situation where the use calling for reform and change -- at the current moment is not relating to my personality, not to hosni mubarak. this is now relating to eject the current situation, the

future situation. all egyptians are in the same trench and we should continue to engage in the national dialogue that we have. in a friendly atmosphere without any entity and distance in order to break through the current crisis and to restore confidence in our economy. the stability and peace to our citizens and to restore it the way of life in the egyptian -- i have been just like you when i learned the -- loyalty to the homeland and sacrifice. i have exhausted my life defending their homeland. i went to war, i want victory, i

remember the days of occupation and i lived through the days of victory it was the happiest day of my life when i lifted the flag of egypt. i have -- this on many occasions as a pilot. i have safeguarded peace. i work for peace, stability, and independence. i worked for the development. i never sought popularity. i am certain that the majority of the people are unaware of who hosni mubarak is. i feel pain in my heart from some of my countrymen.

based on light from conviction that egypt is going through a defining moment. they are all required to show the differences and they call for the homeland to be above all. i have seen that it is required to delegate the powers of the president to the vice president. the will of the people cannot be detected. we will not allow others to --

over us. we will materialize the demands of the people. we will not be dictated orders from others. we will prove all of this. the unity of these people and our adherence to the pride and dignity of egypt is a unique and eternal identity. this is the foundation of our nation. this spirit will live on so long as egypt and its people, this

will live with and us, farmers, educated, the educated, the youth, the children, moslems, christians. it will live on in the mind and conscience of those who are yet to be born. i say again, i have lived for this nation, i have safeguarded my responsibility. this is the means an end. this is the responsibility. it is the homeland of birth and death.

you will remain proud people. may god save egypt, a peaceful country, and it may day be on the right full path. may there be peace upon you all. >> this is the defining moment for egypt. the party has been given above all considerations. after being delegated by the president to shoulder the responsibility and to safeguard the stability of egypt, to safeguard the acquisitions, to restore peace and security with

the egyptian public and to restore the normal way of life, i request to continue to achieving this goal. i have no doubt that the egyptian people are capable of safeguarding their own interests. we have opened the door for dial-up diet -- dialogue. we have reached an agreement. this has been laid down to legitimize the majority of demands. the door is still open for further dialogue. within this context, i reiterate the following -- i am committed to carrying out whatever -- to ensure the peaceful transition of power in accordance with the stipulations of the constitution. i proclaim my adherence to

implementing all of the procedures that i had promised and in relation to the dialogue and to the agreements to be reached at a later stage. to safeguard the uyouth to work towards restoring confidence and to respect the constitution and a lot. to realize the demands of the people and from this perspective, i call on all the citizens to look forward to the future end by our hands we can make this future bright. with freedom and democracy, you are the people and we cannot be driven -- and we cannot allow --

perpetrating intimidation. let's join hands and let's march forward in a path that will guarantee the realization of the demands for the youth and to have a peaceful life where the love of the homeland is the top priority for which we can sacrifice every day. i call upon the youth and the heroes of egypt, go back home. go back to your work. the country needs your hands. let's join hands to develop creativity. do not listen to the satellite television stations whose main

purpose is to deal with the sedition and to drive among the people and to tarnish the people. only listen to your own conscience, your common-sense and your awareness of what is going on around us. we have started work and relying on god and our faith in institutions, namely the armed forces, the interrupted armed forces that have defended the country and its constitutional legitimacy and preserving the property and security of the people. the clock is ticking, let's march forward by the grace of god having firm belief in the resolve of the people and the ability to surmount obstacles. we will work in the spirit of

the team and the result of the egyptians that cannot be dented i've taken the oath before god and you to work for this homeland with all of the power that i have to maintain the security and the will of the people. in the name of all law -- allah, may peace be upon you. >> the house intelligence committee questions the hands of the federal and intelligence agencies. the house debates some divisions -- provisions of the patriot act. then a chance to see president mubarak's statement from earlier tonight.

the house intelligence committee held its first open hearing today and heard from the heads of the cia, fbi, and a director of national intelligence. >> because of the news cycle, reporters are constantly asking us questions all day long. by the time you get to the briefing room, they will ask you questions until 4:00 a.m.. >> find out the roles of the press secretary and watch their press conferences through the years. every program since 1987, watch what you want when you want. >> the heads of several

agencies, including the director of national intelligence, testified at this hearing of the house intelligence committee today about worldwide terrorist threats. topics included the political situation in egypt, the patriot act, and security. this is 2.5 hours. please pass along our thanks and appreciation to the men and women in your agencies for their commitment and dedication in the defense of the united states. we are eternally grateful for their sacrifices. i also want to welcome the committee's new ranking member. his dedication and talent may

serve this committee well. he is also a friend. it never hurts to have a former prosecutor on your side. i am looking forward to discussion and the questions and answers that follow. i want to talk a moment or i would like to -- the committee to go and the new congress. taking a strong evaluation of the 10 years where the budget has grown exponentially and change significantly. the budget, cyber issues, and many others. it is a profound honor and a tremendous responsibility to a similar role of the chairman. the u.s. intelligence committee

is vital to defending our nation for many threats that we face. i've no doubt that our hard work for mark because -- intelligence professionals is the reason why there has not been a successful attack since 9/11. despite numerous disrupted plot antel qaeda -- al qaeda. our job here in congress is to make sure that our intelligence agencies have the tools and a 40 they need for their mission. and that we never stop working to improve the intelligence committee's effectiveness. we'll be critical when we need to be. we will be supportive of we can be. we will take a critical look at the policies which were given by policy-makers when you are asked to complete a mission. that begins with reasserting the committee for a series -- when it was established in 1977. i plan to do my part to restore that tradition. i will need the help from every

member of this committee. i want to pass a meaningful authorization bill. we are already working on the 2011 bill to be quickly followed by the fiscal year 2012. the commission recommended that congressional authorization work more closely on intelligence matters. the house intelligence committee voted unanimously yesterday to allow appropriations members to participate in our hearings and briefings at our goal here is to close -- it might be frustrating for you on occasion, but at the end of the day, we will give a much better product for you to do your jobs and complete remissions. the 10th year anniversary of 9/11. they transformed our country and the way we view national security. many threats we have faced have

continued to evolve. our response to keep pace. whether they are positioned to face the threats of the future. congress has made a historic change is since 9/11 to update the laws that authorize and governor intelligence committee. we need to keep pouring to make sure -- working to make sure that the laws keep pace. critical provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance expire at the end of this month. we need to authorize these provisions. they are needed for this modernization. the bill has been a vital in this -- has been vital to protecting our nation.

we need to work toward making these tools permanent. we must reinforce legal authority concerning detainee's. one of our best intelligence sources in the war on terrorism. we need to examine a system for intelligence collection and long-term detention that is flexible and can endure changing circumstances and challenges no matter where the detainee is picked up off the battlefield or in the war. executive orders are not good enough. this problem requires legislation at -- legislative action. the recidivism rate has reached an alarming rate, 25%. that is just the ones that we know of. we need to take a hard look at the detainee transfer and release process. we have never had a good debate over the institutions we put in place after 9/11 to prevent another attack.

the national counterterrorism center to be more of a driven organization. we need to move beyond the debate. this is a more important point. beside the staff, must certainly strength. the real issue is that what we are asking them to do. missions should drive the size of the staff, not an arbitrary number. you have shared them with me and other members of the committee. we want you to succeed. the fbi is a unique institution, straddling the foreign and domestic threats to our security. i am especially interested in the efforts of the fbi to build an intelligence service within a law enforcement agency. the fbi has made progress since 9/11 and has become much more intelligent striven.

as the fort hood and how -- tragic -- tragedy showed, -- al qaeda has increased the use of westerners and americans to penetrate our defenses. the thrift is further complicated by an act of violence by homegrown and south -- self radicalized american militants. we depend on the fbi to address this growing threats. our nation has invested heavily in our interest -- intelligence capabilities and 9/11. the intelligence budget has grown exponentially. we have to reach an understanding about the return on the investment in terms of real improvement to our security. history is littered with examples of the consequences of nations that lived beyond their means for far too long. the american people have become justifiably concerned about our budget deficit. we must seek greater efficiencies in the existing

budget to refund new or expanded intelligence programs or return the savings to the american people. achieving significant efficiencies will require some hard choices. i look forward to having a good discussion about the pros and cons of different approaches to getting there in the coming months and years i urge the intelligence committee to remain open-minded about the alternative satellite architecture that could potentially meet current requirements at a much lower cost the taxpayer. i am studying my options carefully and i would suggest you do as well. while further budget growth is unlikely, i will will line against any cuts that endanger our key intelligence capabilities. it is not a luxury. i want to avoid the mistakes of the 1990's. making sure that our troops have the best intelligence support possible is one of my highest

priorities. i will focus more on that in the coming years. it is the only authorization committee with jurisdiction over the national intelligence program and the military intelligence program budget. it is a unique position to ensure that our civilian and military intelligence efforts are integrated and coordinated. the reprogramming has not been provided to this committee. under house rules, we have concurrent jurisdictions with the armed services committee. this has been something that has been going on for almost three years. i am sure that it is a misunderstanding. i would appreciate your assistance in getting this problem resolved so that there

are no unnecessary delays to the reprogramming of these funds. the creation of a cyber command at fort meade was a step in the right direction. we believe some legislative changes to achieve the necessary unity of efforts across larger united states government. we have a great deal of talent and when it comes to cyber defense, we do not have the policies and a legal authorities to make your job easier. the speaker of the house has passed the congress meant to lead the efforts. he will have the full support of the committee and the development of cyber security legislation. i believe we need to have a good debate over whether -- where to draw the boundaries of what the

united states government defend and how we can help any critical and the structure or industry players that are left outside the parameter of defense. the wikileaks fiasco should lead to an increased focus on information sharing within the united states government. we miss critical opportunities to prevent the 9/11 attacks because of our failures to share information between government agencies. the committee has made tremendous progress and 9/11. we cannot allow the wikileaks disaster to be an excuse to halt or reverse this programs. we need to make sure that we may learn the right lessons from wikileaks. the right lesson is to redouble our efforts to promote information sharing while protecting the security of that information. i like to call it smart access. it is the system -- in response

to that fiasco, the intelligence community and defense department has put together a good plan to implement smart access tools to detect our presence of data. -- are sensitive data. these long overdue fixes will not be cheap. i believe they are well worth the price and the investment by the american people. this committee will monitor the implementation of these fixes. with that, i look forward to working with you all. i look forward to your questions on the threats that face america. i know they are many. i know the hours logged are also many. we have had the privilege of meeting many of you on weekends and nights.

i hope that is not to lost on the american people. with that, i want to thank you. i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. rogers. congratulations on your chairmanship. we commit to work together in a bipartisan way in this very serious issue that we deal with. director of the iowa, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, director of national terrorism center, assistant secretary of state euro of intelligence and research department of state ambassador.

i want to point out that karen used to work with us on this committee. today, thank you for joining us here today. the hearing is a rare opportunity were members of the intelligence committee give an assessment of the threats we are facing around the world. on this committee, our highest priority must be keeping our country and citizens safe. the stakes are high and the challenges are great. we are committed to giving these professionals the resources and capabilities they need to counter the numerous threats that america faces. everything from all qaeda to homegrown terrorists living in the united states. at the same time, it is the responsibility to give a comprehensive oversight. we will demand accountability from the community and expect that we will be kept fully informed. our job is not to tear down the

agencies, the build you up to be the strongest that you can be. our role is oversight. good intelligence is the best way to prevent terrorism and keep the world safe. since our last hearing in february of 2010, we have seen situations where -- saving countless lives. last october, to chicago bound bombs were placed on it ups and fedex planes in hopes of pulling them up. the plan was disrupted. no one was injured because of good intelligence. in november, a somalian teenager planted to bomb a christmas tree lighting ceremony, but was caught in an undercover sting operation. a pakistani man from virginia was arrested for planning a simultaneous attacks. he was nabbed before anyone was hurt. because of good intelligence. we also know that we need to do

better and we can do better. last may, a young man trained by the taliban packed a van full of explosives in times square. a passer-by noticed that it was smoking and called police. the terrorist was sentenced to life in prison. you cannot turn on the television or open up a newspaper and not hear about the unrest brewing in the middle east. mass protests continued this week -- to sweep the region. president mubarak has agreed to step down in september. a new government will take over, but the protests have not subsided. egyptians deserve open and free elections. i know they look forward to the future of a greater freedom with a government that is fair and responsible egypt is an important ally in the region. our goals remain the same. a stable middle east, a partner

in the fight against global terrorism, and the protection of vital energy supplies. the future government of egypt must support the peace treaty with israel. are professionals are working diligently to provide the latest revolt -- intelligent about the situation in egypt. they do not have a crystal ball and cannot predict the future. we are always pushing him to give us more intelligence. in nearby iraq, forces are being drawn down. in afghanistan, a 30,000 troops search is under way. yemen, somalia, and pakistan are trouble spots when it comes to terrorism. america's national security it hinges on the security across the region. -- the stability across the region. the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching this september. this sobering milestone the

minds of our fight against terrorism and it is far from over. almost 10 years after the most deadly terrorist attack, or principal challenges the same. identified terrorist plots and stop them before this hurts americans and our way of life. we must also address itself a radicalization and the threat of terrorism by americans in america. in addition to the oregon case, she pleaded guilty to terrorism charges. these are the people we have caught. we are more concerned about the one still out there that we have not. terrorism is not our only challenge facing national security. we must not forget about mexico. the violence in mexico is an american issue. police and elected officials who were taking a stand against the drug trade are being threatened and killed.

we put so many resources into the middle east, we must also increase our support to mexico. but it has a direct effect on american people and citizens. north korea and iran still pose a significant difficult to america. iran continues to stir up things and play a game of cat and mouse. the prospects for a diplomatic dialogue are not going anywhere. china and russia oppose their own national security issues. they are real issues in the steel is. we cannot ignore the fact that the chinese and other governments are engaging in cyber attacks. these attacks can cause big problems, even though they are gathering little national attention. cyber attacks -- they keep our electric grid running and

protect our water supply. if these systems are disrupted, it could have catastrophic consequences. we already have examples of what is possible. last week, the nasdaq was attacked. trades were not affected, but hackers penetrated certain internal software. the website wikileaks disclosed tens of thousands of classified documents that could put sensitive diplomacy in jeopardy. when mastercard, amazon, prevented their supporters from making donations, a group attacked these websites and shut them down for a period of time. cyber threats are real. the threat from cyber attacks is real and must be addressed. the last issue i would like to discuss the space. we have some of the best satellite but america is the most powerful country in the world because of the fact that we control the skies.

satellites are important because they keep us safe. wheezed into track suspected terrorist iran the world. -- we used them to attract suspected terrorists around the world. when our troops climbed a hill on the battlefield, they know who was on the other side of that hill because of technology. we can find that needle in a haystack because we have the best satellites and the world trade you may have heard the president mention our sputnik moment. more than 50 years ago, the soviet union a rock star world by launching sputnik into space. america entered the challenge and landed a man on the man. the space industry was born. american made a massive investment in research and development. america amid worldwide headlines in just about every kid on earth wanted to be neil armstrong.

today, there is -- america's dominance in space is fragile. when it comes to a rocket launch capabilities, other countries have seen costs drop, but the united states has not. we are spending more per rocket launch than anywhere else. the united states has committed to a to company alliance to handle all launches. other u.s. companies are showing promise. the must get costs under control. we must consider other approaches. we must in short every dollar is used wisely. you caught the good programs would be bad. we must review each program on its own merits. we must identify what is working and get rid of what is not, including redundant programs

that cost us too much money. we must do what is right for the american people to keep our families and communities safe. i have great respect for the men and women of the intelligence committee -- communities. they live in the shadows. i refer them to the offensive linemen. you only hear about them when they make the mistake. i wanted knowledge these players for their service by giving them the research that they need to get the job done. >> this will be open portion of the hearing to approximately 12. we may push that to trouble >> 15. -- 12:15. >> i want to thank you for having this open hearing. it is a wonderful way to start this session. i hope we will consider the opportunity to have more of these. the american people need to know how our intelligence community

is working to keep us safe. and have a classified hearing after word if need be. thank you very much. this is very useful. >> i will turn it over -- >> thank you, rogers. i am very pleased to be proud to be joined by my colleagues. the reason we are all here together is important to both before the -- the intelligence community is a team. is a community. i am very proud to be associated with my colleagues here today who represent hundreds of years of public service and involvement in the intelligence professionals. i want to comment on two of the

organizations. the fbi director has led a remarkable transformation of the as bite into intelligence driven organization. -- the fbi i into a intelligence-driven organization. i think we are doing a lot to change the paradigm about what has been a strange relationship between dni and cia. the cia is a national treasure. i am proud to be associated with the agency in this capacity. before i get into remarks, i want to say on behalf of all of us, we appreciate your support

we need your oversights and engagement and your part -- and your partnership. in past capacities, i have been associated with a few oversight committees. what i see happening here is a reversion to the original. spirit of what was intended these committees to be. i want to endorse something about the in portions of the patriot act extension. it expires at the end of this month. this is critically important to all of us. we know this is a matter of discussion and debate in both houses. we would favor a three-year extension to coincide with extensions -- it is not possible

to cover this full scope of worldwide frets. i want to take this opportunity to highlight four broad areas of significant concerns for u.s. national security. we have submitted a longer statement for the record that reflects the collective insights of extraordinary men and women. they're deeply committed to deliver -- to gathering intelligence. the first and foremost of these concerns is terrorism. counterterrorism is our top priority. intelligence committees to help

avoid potentially devastating attacks. we have apprehended numerous dangerous factors across the world. we are deeply engaged with our foreign partners to detect and prevent terrorist actions and will remain vigilant despite the degradation of the organization against al qaeda to attack the west. we're especially focused on their resolve to target americans for recruitment and respond affiliate's across the world. we've seen disturbing incidents of self radicalization among our own citizens. the intelligence committee helped disrupt plots here in the united states. home grown terrorist are numerically a small part of the global threat, they have a disproportionate impact because they understand the connections

here and have easier access to u.s. facilities. counterterrorism is simple to our overseas operations. the people of the afghanistan are up against a determined insurgency. pakistan also confronts a terrorist who threatened to destabilize the government and attack the citizens. although u.s. combat operations have come to an official close in iraq,