the regulators and our business creators. we do not and should not leave it to the f.b.i. to decide what is bank robbery. we do not and should not leave it to the drug enforcement administration to decide which controlled substances under title 21 should be criminalized or not. that is a function of this body, the executive branch does not write laws, at least not yet in this republic. . yet we let regulatory agencies decide the details that either create or destroy the environment that is conducive to creating jobs. while other congresses may have delegated and abdicated, we must reclaim the responsibility to govern and legislate and the accountability that is attendant thereto. h.res. 72 does exactly that and i'm pleased to rise in its

support. i'm -- i thank the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member. mr. smith and i worked together on the immigration issue and i was -- i would beg to differ, it is well documented that regularalizing individuals in certain industries would create jobs and investment in this country but as well as you have one person, that person generates the opportunity for another, in construction jobs, for example, there are opportunities when you are involved in construction and have the right trained persons, it creates expanded jobs.

but i also want to make mention that as we may have cited the 600 jobs lost because allege think of a c.b.o. report, i know that 500 jobs have been lost because of a merger between two major giants in the aviation industry and frankly, i would hope that we could focus on whether that is a -- one of the diminishing aspects of mergers, that individuals do lose jobs. but i will also say to you that we have documentation here that 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created since the enact of of health care reform, i mentioned three million jobs in my statement, 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created, 207,000 jobs in the health care industry have been created since the enactment of

health care reform. under the past administration, president bush, 670,000 jobs were lost. the fact that the health care reform will cost 800,000 jobs is misconstrued. lastier' debate showed the bill will save taxpayers billions and give people more access to health care. again, 1.1 million jobs have been created. so we'll have a constant debate about numbers but i think there is a vigorous debate of how these jobs could be lost. the real issue is, this is the judiciary committee, to protect the rights of the american people. i have cited, the ranking member has cited and mr. cohen as cited ways we can protech jobs in america, to protect the consumer and to ensure that competition is fair and healthy. i would, madam speaker, simply ask my colleagues to engage in that kind of work as opposed to

work that will take up the time of this body and delay us from doing the people's work and providing justice for all. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the yealt yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, a yield back the balance of my time of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. ross: thank you, madam speaker. thank you for this opportunity, mr. chairman. today i rise in strong support of house resolution 72. now more than ever, regulatory reform is needed of agencies who have expanded their authority to levels far beyond what was ever intended in circumstance um vention of the legislative process. at a time of record unemployment, the last thing business and in particular our small businesses need is burdensome regulation and added compliance costs. why would we make it harder for our job creators to expand and grow?

shouldn't we create an environment that fosters prosperity, innovation and global marketplace for competitiveness? for example, in my home state of florida, we have what's known as numeric nutrient water criteria being thrust on us by the e.p.a. a regulatory law supported only by junk science, not accepted principles of science, but it's going to cost my citrus industry $300 million in initial compliance cost, it's going to cost my agriculture industry up to $50 million, with an impact of $1 billion to the economy and 14 million jobs los. in florida, water is our livelihood, we can regulate our own control of water. we believe in clean water but we need a voice in what's happening to us in these regulatory controls. it's unfair that we prevent

florida's job creators from employing citizens in need of jobble we are regulating jobs out of existence. would those who support regulatory control not be satisfied until we choke the last breath out of our economy and job market because of too much control? regulation is needed, the reins act, the regulatory flexibility improvements act and the administrative act reform are necessary. they will provide transparency to a rule making process and give businesses large and small proper due process in agency digs that affect them. they are the important first steps that allow businesses the ability to grow, our sit zepps to work and the economy to flourish. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: shaung, -- thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i wanted to suggest that the

gentleman from texas, judge poe, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, who raised the criticism about the new 1099 rule that is a job killer, i wanted to know -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: could the chairman -- mr. smith: i understand that the ranking member is short of time and i would like unanimous consent to give him four minutes of the time that i have left. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman has -- will control the time. mr. conyers: thank you, chairman smith, i appreciate that very much. judge poe referenced the new 1099 rules and apparently he and the president are in agreement

because the rule expands reporting requirements to include transactions of $600 or more. president obama has stated that he is open to reconsidering these rules in the light of the burden that it brings on small businesses. so i'd like to suggest that there is at least one point of accord, there may be others between the members of the rules -- of the judiciary committee and the tissue in the consideration of the matter before us. now, i return to the assertion that the health care bill proudly referred to by some on this side of the aisle as obamacare, that this bill will

cost 00,000 jobs. -- 800,000 jobs. i would like to suggest that this misleading figure has been floating around since last summer. this is why in "the hill" article on the c.b.o. today said quote, g.o.p. jumps on old job numbers, end quote. what c.b.o. said last summer was that if health insurance is affordable, a person who is working a bad job just to keep health care might be able to leave the job. now, surely we wouldn't want a person who is suffering from a

pre-existing disability that would be able under this expanded health care to keep on working when -- when the only reason he was working in the first place was to get the health care that was otherwise, until now, unavailable. if people can get health insurance despite pre-existing conditions, then such folks might be able to leave their work. i'm sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wouldn't have any objection to that. and yes, it might reduce the number of people working, but it would save lives. that's what health care is about. a person who is not el visible for medicare because he or she was under 65 might choose to

retire and get private insurance instead of staying on the job until medicare becomes available. others who needed to work a second job just to afford health care may not now need to do it because we made health care more affordable. for goodness' sake, i can't imagine that anybody under the example that i have used would be opposed to a person leaving a job under that circumstance. that does not mean that that is costing jobs in america. it's saving lives. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i want to point out that the figure we've been using that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is not necessarily an old figure. or maybe i should concede it's a day old. that figure came from yesterday's testimony by the budget director in front of the budget committee. i said budget director, let me read the statement. testifying today before the house budget committee congressional budget office director doug elmendorf confirmed that obamacare is expected to recuse the number of jobs in the labor market by 800,000 people. i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: in response to a couple of questions from members of congress, the last from john campbell, a resident of california, the director of the c.b.o. said in response to a question, is it going to cost 800,000 jobs, his one-word

answer was, yes. so those are fresh figures, they are accurate figures and i think we need to be very acutely aware of just how many jobs the new health care plan is going to cost. madam speaker, i'd now like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, who is also a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffin: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.res. 72 because i believe that a number of regulations issued by the federal agencies are stifling job creation and from the sound of it, president oba maw agrees. on january 18 of this year, president obama issued an executive order stating that, quote, our regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation. i agree with the president on all those points. some regulations are critical to

protect our hell and provide a safe place to live and work. there are a number of regulations affecting job creators, including shawl businesses and community banks. these regulations are overly burdensome, repetitive and just plain don't make sense. not a day goes by without one of my constituents complaining over the e.p.a.'s overreaching policies. the administration is trying to do through regulations what it couldn't get passed into law. as a result, job creators spend their money complying with these burdensome regulations, money that should be used to create jobs. money that should be used to invest in research and capital improvements and money that should be used to spur innovation. for example, job creators are spending money planning for more burdensome e.p.a. regulations on boilers. boilers used every day to heat schools and businesses. now, the e.p.a. wans to apply

the oil spill law to force dairy farmers to spend millions of dollars preparing for spilled milk because of the amount of fat in it. what if it's skim milk? if it wasn't so strubbling, -- so troubling, it might be funny. on top othis, regulations yet to be written inject uncertainty into the economy, further stifling job creation. uncertainty over credits is forcing a company in my district to stop building wind turbipes because they don't know if they can sell them. i've heard concerns over the lack of transparency if unelected federal workers that have never met the folks in arkansas. they've never held a town hall. they don't hold town halls before they write these regulations. yet they pass the equivalent of laws every day. . we can do better. let's seek skenlutions.

-- secretary of defense -- commonsense solutions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time of the the american people people know what washington has not learned, too many regulations impose too many costs and costs too many jobs. the judiciary committee is working hard under reforms we need to unleash american businesses to create jobs. we should pass the raines act. pass the regulatory flexibility improvements act, reform the administrative procedure act, and the practice of too many regulations with too many costs for too few benefits. madam speaker, i think this debate really comes down to a very simple question, there are those who favor a government of regulation and there are those of us who feel that congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations. any member of congress who feels

that congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations, i believe, will support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jan. -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. mr. kline: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the resolution and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. kline: thank you, madam speaker. today's effort is driven by a simple goal, to ensure every area of the federal government is dedicated to job creation. if we are to get the nation back to work, we all must work together to remove barriers to economic growth and prosperity. every job matters and every

effort to help create a new job matters. the american people have demonstrate add relentless determination to make the difficult choices necessary to get through these tough times. we should do no less. employers need certainty, flexibility, and freedom to expand their businesses and hire new workers, red tape should not tie down economic growth and onerous regulations should not be road blocked to job creation. congress can no longer accept sweeping changes that affect the lives of students and workers without first determining whether it is good for our long-term competitiveness, good for job creators, and good for our economy. we were sent here to focus on getting the economy back on track and the american people back to work. today we are moving forward with our commitment to do just that. in my conversations with constituents, i have seen the desperation that follows months of searching in vain for work. i have also witnessed the hope that is renewed at the prospect

of future employment. everyone agrees you need rules of the road and commonsense protections. bad actors will always exist and they must be held accountable for breaking the law, but we shouldn't accept lost wages, lost jobs, and lost opportunities as inevitable consequences to advancing fairness, accountability, and responsibility. the education and work force committee oversees a broad range of policies that affect the nation's workplaces in classrooms. a number of those policies will be discussed by other leaders of the committee in a few moments. in the time remaining for myself, i would like to discuss one area in particular that deserves closer examination. is the federal government using its authority fairly and on behalf of american workers or is it pursuing a partisan agenda that makes our workplaces less competitive? the national labor relations board is an independent federal agency created by congress more than 75 years ago. the nlrb is charged with preventing and remedying unfair

labor practices and establishing whether employees' desire union representation. its responsibility is to fairly protect the rights of workers against unlawful encroachment by employers and unions. unfortunately, the board has recently shown an eggerness to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful special interests. a culture of union favoritism has seized the board with consequences that reach into virtually every workplace. stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot through a backdoor card check scheme is one looming threat. the board also has threatened legal action against states seeking to protect the secret ballot and it has diminished safeguards for employers. we cannot allow the board to rewrite the rules of the game to circumvent the will of congress in pursuit of its own job destroying agenda. the same culture of union favoritism has also swept across the administration. expanding protections for big labor at the expense of rank-and-file workers.

project labor agreements and highroad contracting sound innocent enough but they put small businesses and the vast majority of their works at a disadvantage at the expense of the taxpayers, i might add. these are the kinds of policies that should be examined to determine whether they undermine economic growth. our efforts will not be blinded by partisanship. if we learn of a rule or regulation that stands in the way of a strong work force, regardless of the congress or administration that put it in place, we will take a look at it. this is a critically important responsibility and i look forward to working with every member of congress to get it done. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. . ms. woolsey: madam speaker, i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey, rob andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from california for yielding. as we meet this morning there are 15 million unemployed people in our country. and what i'm hearing from our constituents a is they want us to work together to find ways to help the job generators of this country, small businesses and entrepreneurs, to put americans back to work. here we are again, really just having a political discussion that doesn't hire a person, help a company, or really go anywhere. frankly the majority has gone from ignoring the unemployment problem to worsening it in the last couple of days. in the five weeks that they have been in the majority, there's not been one bill, not one word, not one hour of debate on a bill that would create jobs in the american economy. instead what we have had is a series of political exercises that have ignored their promise

to, quote, focus like a laser beam on job creation, close quote. now, the problem has gotten worse this week, and practically will get worse as the day goes on, with the announcement of the majority's plan to finish out the budget year with massive cuts in the budget. now, let me say from the outset, we agree completely that sensible spending restraint is necessary to reverse our trend of deficit and debt and help the american people, the american economy. and we look forward to working with our friends in the republican party to make that a reality. but one of the areas that is being considered for up to a 30% cut is education. now, the federal government spends education money on essentially five things.

we help the most disadvantaged children in the country learn how to read and do mathematics in title 1. we help children confronted with a learning disability with down syndrome or autism get special education services through idea. there are scholarships and student loans for people of all descriptions to get a higher education. at a college or tech school. there are programs for someone who has lost his job at an oil refinery or bank be retrained for their next job. and there's a small but crucial amount of money that helps our teachers become better instigators of science education or math education and instill in the next generation the hunger to learn and power to achieve. you need not listen to members of congress about the consequences of these kinds of cuts, listen to the job generators of our country.

listen to andrew, the leader of the dow chemical company, who is part of the business round table report in december said the following, and i quote, i think if you had to go to the easy one, education is the sweet spot for the government, for congress, and for all of us. if we don't get a well educated work force back in this country, if we don't invest in science, technology, engineering, and math, if we don't pull it all together, he goes on to say, there will be trouble. and he further says, so what we've got to do is, quote, have a sustained investment. government and public companies together, private partnerships in education. this is not the democratic leader of the house. this is not president obama's administration. this is the leader of dow chemical company. saying that to grow jobs in america and win global economic competition we need to invest in

education. the majority's taking us in exactly the wrong direction. proposing cuts of up to 30% in education programs that will be on the floor next week. so sadly they have moved from ignoring the jobs problem to worsening it. we want to work together with the republican party and with independents to find ways to empower small businesses and entrepreneurs to put our country back to work. we spent 9 1/2 hours in this debate talking about something else. let's get on with this debate, get on to business, put the american people back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam speaker. before i yield to the gentlelady from north carolina, i feel compelled to respond for a minute to the remarks of my good friend from new jersey. underscores the fundamental difference here. we believe that the issues that we have been talking about and are talking about today and will be talking about next week

strike directly to the problem of unemployment and the lack of jobs in this country. without fiscal responsibility, without addressing the exploding debt, without addressing the job-killing health care plan which we have done, and without addressing the blizzard of regulations that's coming out of this administration and every industry, we are not going to be able to create those jobs. it's a fundamental difference. the debate will go on. but clearly we believe and i believe that we are directly addressing jobs because we found out over the last few years, certainly the last two years, that spending billions and hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars does not in fact put america back to work. so at this time i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. ms. foxx: i thank you, madam chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding me time. i rise today in support of h.res. 72, which directs certain house committees to review the impact of federal regulations on

job creation and economic growth. last year the department of education published a proposed regulation that sets a federal definition of gainful employment and requires certain i.n.s. tuelingses -- institutions on higher ed to seek the department's approval before creating new educational programs. this regulation will likely eliminate hundreds of course official and degree granting programs that proprietary and nonprofit institutions of higher education, preventing students from having access to these programs and often to careers that will ensure that the united states remains competitive. access and affordability remain important pieces of the higher ed discussion. as voters resoundingly under scored in november, the federal government should be focused on accountability for taxpayer money, but that responsibility should not come at the expense of educational opportunities for students. thomas donahue, the president and c.e.o. of the u.s. chamber of commerce in a recent speech on the state of american business listed the gainful employment regulation as a prime

example of federal overreach. he pointed out that if permitted to become final, the regulation would deny students access to colleges and universities across the country. fewer students receiving the education and gaining the skills necessary to get a high skilled, high-paying job means fewer people entering the work force. while the proprietary school sector is a diverse group of institution, many of these colleges and universities serve individuals who are looking for short-term education or seeking certifications that can be obtained in a year or less. these are exactly the types of educational programs that provide individuals with new skills that can immediately be put to use in today's dynamic workplace. one of the many benefits of the proprietary school sector is its ability to create quickly new programs to train students to help the local population meet the labor shortages of a particular area, many of these institutions have advisory boards composed of key business leaders in the program areas

offered by the interconstitution. the proposed gainful employment regulation will take away that flexibility by requiring the federal government's approval for every new program created at a proprietary institution. while we can all agree we do not want bad programs to exist, this paints a higher sector of higher education with the president bush and does nothing to give students to institutions to improve their student outcomes. this-t could also have a disproportionate impact on programs that serve low-income students who may need to borrow more funding under federal students loan programs to pay for education. in either case colleges and universities will have difficulty enrolling students into course that is prepare them for careers. the gainful employment education is the opposite of what the federal government needs to be pushing during economic downturn. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from california.

ms. woolsey: once again, instead of working to rebuild our economy and create jobs, this house of representatives is engaged in a debate that offers neither. for 10 hours, and two days, the house of representatives' time is tied up on a motion telling our committees to perform their constitutional duties. we understand that vigorous oversight and rooting out waste are absolutely essential and they are our duties and we must perform them on behalf of the taxpayers. that's not a question, we know that. in fact on january 15, the education and work forest committees unanimously -- and work force committees unanimously approved a plan that calls for regulation. this resolution calls for review and regulation. today's debate is duplicative. it is duplicative of our oversight plan, it is

unnecessary and a total paes of taxpayers' dollars. worse yet, we're taking away valuable time when we could be rolling up our sleeves, getting the number up with tryity of the american people in front of us, creating jobs. for instance, the education an work force committee could be responding to the very real skills crisis our nation's workers and businesses are facing. a recent article in "the washington post" found that in november, there were an estimated 3.2 million job opportunities across the country. however, businesses interviewed by "the washington post" with help wanted signs were struggling to find workers with sufficient skills. this is in the united states of america. this is -- this has crippled their ability to keep the line running and keeping their doors open. this is a major disconnect, madam speaker. a disconnect that must be

explored and it must be quickly addressed. certain sectors such as health care and technology are projected to grow considerably over the next decade. these sectors actually require more skilled workers, not fewer. that's why our committee should be back in our committee room right now looking to ensure the connection between employers and their want to hire workers can be fulfilled. that means looking at training and education programs that connect to the jobs available today and in the future. at a time when jobs are important, this shortfall means lost economic opportunity for millions of americans. it means a shortfall of businesses that want to make it in america with american workers. now when it comes to reviewing regulations, i've heard

disturbing views from the other side of the aisle recently. i refuse to accept the argument that our nation's hell and safety protections need to be reduced to the level of china's in order to compete. there is a reason why the law of the land ensures basic health and safety protections on the job. and that reason is too often written in the blood of dead workers. rolling back protections to satisfy powerful special interests at the expense of worker safety is a fool'ser rand. relying -- is a fool's errand. relying on faulty studies that exaggerate the cost of worker safety regulations while excluding any benefits, such as the life of a family's breadwinner, leads to a dishonest debate. we've seen the deadly results of failing to properly regulate. we've seen what happens when you rely on self-certification, voluntary compliance, and inadequate protection.

11 workers died when an oil rig blows up in the gulf of mexico. workers die over and over again on massive construction projects on the las vegas strip. 14 workers die in a sugar refinery outside of savannah, fey, because there are no protections covering combustible dust. there are 700 workers losing their jobs in north carolina because loopholes in osha regulations allow a massive factory explosion to happen. the explosion killed three and injured more than 50 workers. and that factory is now relocating, rather than rebuilding, dealing this community a double tragedy. madam speaker, without proper regulation and enforcement, workers are misclassified as independent contractors, robbing them of benefits, robbing our

nation's treasury and putting lawbreakers over law -- at an advantage over law-abiding employers. workers' hard-earned pensions are gambled away. we have the best workers in the world and they deserve basic protections. our nation's workers also deserve a congress devoted to growing and strengthening the middle class. not meaningless debates like today's. i urge this congress, get to the business of the american people without delay. the business of this congress should be about jobs and the business of this congress should be about rebuilding our nation's competitiveness and that business should begin now. we cannot afford any further delays or distractions. with that, i reserve the mans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, madam speaker. last november, the people of michigan, workers that long defined manufacturing, sent a message to washington that business as usual in this town is not working. currently, the unemployment rate in my home state is at 11.7%. and even higher in some counties in my seventh congressional district. over the past two years, we witnessed burdensome laws being imposed on businesses and still feel the threat of costly regulation that prevents companies from growing and hiring.

small businesses are the en-in of job creation in this cupry. even the current administration believes that, and i quote, that they bear a disproportionate share of federal regulatory burden. the office of adro kacy of small business administration reports the total cost of federal regulation has increased to $1.75 trillion. the cost per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 workers ags $1,285. a heritage study foundation found last year alone, the government issued 43 major regulations with costs estimated in tens of billions of dollars. one of the threats many employers face is working with the current department of labor's occupational safety and health administration. everyone recognizes the need for common sense rules that promote workplace safety. however, onerous rules and regulations should not be a roadblock to job creation and

economic growth. currently, regulations by osha cost small businesses, which are defined as businesses with fewer than 500 employees, between $650 to $781 per employee. there are serious questions about whether osha's punishment before prevention approach to workplace safety is really the best breast of the workers. last month, osha withdrew two costly proposed regulations. osha's noise standards would mandate companies spend thousands, or millions of dollars for quieter machinery when simple, adequate solutions are already in place. a week later, osha temporarily repealed its muss cue lo tell tall disorders reporting requirement after claiming it did not receive enough insight from small businesses to

proceed. this would have overwhelmed small business owners in paperwork and opened the door for increased fines. while it was repealed, i cannot stress the unease many businesses feel about knowing the fact that this is only a temporary withdrawal. there have also been expressed concerns about the department of labor's wage and hour division establishing a new arrangement with the american bar association. this agreement, known as the bridge to justice program, sets the stage for the potential of costly lit gration of a great many companies by trial lawyer -- litigation of a great many companies by trial lawyers out to line their own pockets. this arrangement go into effect when the department of labor's wage and hour division receives a complaint it will not investigate. it sends the claim to the american bar association who will help provide private

attorneys for them to pursue their claims. will this new referral arrangement between the wage and hour department and the american bar association truly help workers, or is it intended to punish employers? this is a critical issue. especially for small business. in our subcommittee, it's my goal to find answers to many questions facing our work force and employers. questions like, are the rules providing the necessary protection to workers or merely creating costly animosity between government and free enterprise. how can we more fully understand and protect the interest of workers and employers alike? in other words, are the regulations that govern our work force sensible or arbitrary in madam speaker, congress needs to step up its oversight of the department to ensure their proposals do not hinder a business' ability to grow, hire new workers or ensure the cooperation of its employees to

advance workplace safety. it is my objective, as the subcommittee chairman of work force protection to examine regulations as they relate to the workplace. the committee will look at any policy or proposal, regardless of whether it is a democrat or republican idea, that may lead to fewer jobs and opportunities for the work -- for the american work force. we plan to hold hearings to determine how to best remove the burden of government regulation on our businesses while holding fast to our commitment to workplace safety. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, we need to talk more about what real regulations are that we should be focusing on, not the regulations for oversight that we've already determined we're going to handle committee by committee, particularly this committee, and we always have. but you know, the "usa today"

had an article about the sugar blast victims in savannah, georgia. one of the victims is quoted in that article as saying, you know, because his brother was killed and he was injured, he says, i've been thinking about my brother, who was burned over almost half his body, and i know it could have been prevented. i'm going to say with the right regulations it could have been prevented. and then telearticle goes on to say, despite the outcry after the blast, the blast that i said had killed 4 people and hindered -- injured 40 others, the united states still lacks federal regulations requiring industrial plants to prevent the buildup of fine dust particles that can form explosive clouds in confined areas.

the regulation that we have that osha has to work with are so outdated that they don't include sugar refineries. or other tri-s that would benefit from having -- or other industries that would benefit from having dust regulations. the article went on to say that federal regulators concluded that the explosion and fire at the refinery wrust west of savannah was caused by a spark that ignited sugar dust like gunpowder. the blast set off secondary dust explosions that turned the packaging plant where butler worked with his 35-year-old brother john, calvin butler, into fiery rubble. last summer, osha, and their administration, proposed $.7 million in fines against imperial sugar and cited the company for 211 safety

violations at its two refinery here's in coastal georgia and in louisiana. . osha has a dust regulation. the 1980's covering grain and plant silos. another federal agency says that's not enough because food processors, yep, would wood manufacturers, and other industries face the same risks. why are they not covered? where are the regulation? why are we not bringing osha into the 21st century instead of having a debate today that has nothing to do with jobs and protecting our workers and instead on talking about oversight regulations that we are already committed to deal with on our committees? madam speaker, in 2006 the "usa today" article goes on to say, the u.s. chemical safety board which investigates industrial accidents called on osha to

close that gap by adopting a new combustible dust regulation. over the past three decades, the board says, about 300 dust explosions have killed more than 120 workers nationwide. those are the lady bulldog igses -- those are the regulations we should be dealing with. those are the debates we should be having. those are the steps we should be taking to bring osha into the 21st century. not keeping it back in the dark ages. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam speaker. pleased at this time to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i think we all agree quality education is important and i rise today to discuss a regulation that will unduly burden our schools and

communities. last october the department of education released the program integrity regulation. many educators feel and fear that these regulation also have a broad reach and require programs to be licensed in each state where a student resides. let me give you an example a small university, small county in ohio, this county has lost 2,500 jobs and on has an 11% baccalaureate rate. o.c.u. created an online degree program which currently has 1,000 students enrolled from 15 states. in addition to educating these students, o.c.u. has created over 150 jobs in five years. if required to be licensed in all 15 states, o.c.u. would be forced to unenroll at least half of the online students and lay off staff. if implemented improperly, this regulation will impact smaller colleges and universities like o.c.u. who don't have the resources to comply with this heavy burden.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: 15 more seconds. mr. austria: let me conclude by saying the regulations are unclear with state as to what extent they are going to cover this program and my hope is that the chairman will address this in the education and work force committee will review this job-killing regulation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. woolsey: could you tell us the amount of time we have on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 45 seconds. the gentlelady from california has 30 seconds. ms. woolsey: thank you. with that these will be my closing remarks. so we have had 10 1/2 hours, two days of debate, on regulations for oversight regulation that our committee and other committees have already agreed they are going to deal with. this to me shows that the

republicans are truly in disarray. we are not discussing jobs, the most important issue in the united states of america. for our people, and at the same time in their disarray the republicans are pushing an irresponsible and dangerous spending bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. woolsey: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, sprrs. i'm pleased we are -- madam speaker. i'm pleased we are spending this time talking about real legislation. democrats have spent trillions of dollars in failed jobs. we have heard examples here today and we'll hear more this afternoon of how this blizzard of regulations is getting in the way of that job creation, preventing americans from getting back to work. we need to step up to our responsibility and this is just the opening of that discussion as we step up to do our jobs and oversight. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i rise today to claim the agriculture committee's time which i believe i'm sharing with my colleague from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield myself five minutes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: today, american agriculture is under attack. every day the administration seems to demonstrate just how

vastly disconnected it is from the folks who feed us. the administration fails to realize that rural america's economy is dependent on agriculture. the in-your-face approach that the administration has taken regarding regulation has increased the cost of doing business for america's farmers and ranchers. if the administration is allowed to continue down this path, the only choice many farmers and ranchers will have will be to stop farming altogether. from the dairies of vermont to the wheat fields near the chesapeake bay, to the corn fields in the midwest, american agriculture is under a constant barrage of a irrational and unworkable regulation from the environmental protection agency which are burdensome, overreaching, and that negatively affect jobs and rural economies. this e.p.a. is mostly interested in pursuing the extreme agenda of environmentalist groups. without any consideration for the impact it will have on our farmers and ranchers. for example, the e.p.a. wants to

treat milk spills like oil spills. simply because milk contains animal fat. the e.p.a. has suggested that milk storage should be regulated under the clean water act as large oil tanks. the e.p.a. wants farmers to till fields without producing any dust. clearly the folks at the e.p.a. have never stepped foot on a farm in western oklahoma. or otherwise they would know that dust happens and all the regulations in the world can't eliminate its existence. the e.p.a. wants farmers to ensure that none of the spray we use for pest drifts one foot away from the original source. the e.p.a. has started an unprecedented re, re-eval lation of the popular wheat control product tetrazine. in 2006, the e.p.a. completed a 1-year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments. jet one of the first orders of business for the obama

administration was to start all over after an article appeared in the "new york times." the e.p.a. is trying to regulate water sheds based off of inaccurate and flawed models. a problem recognized even by the top officials at usda. the list goes on and on. but what further illustrates the alarming frame of mind of the e.p.a. is the agency has gone so far as to recently hold a contest for the public to create videos explaining what federal regulations are important to everyone. in many instances the agency is overreaching its authority instead of operating within the law. the e.p.a. believes it can order congress to pass legislation that gives it more authority and threaten to regulate away if congress chooses not to act. the message from the president is clear. pass a cap and tax bill or we'll pu sue an endangerment finding.

pass more authority to regulate chatter -- water sheds or we'll proceed with executive order. sadly for america's farmers and ranchers, these regulations are not limited to the e.p.a. the department of agriculture's grain inspection packers and stockyard agencies proposed rule for purported fairness far exceeds congressional intent expressed in 2008 farm bill. it lacks credible economic analysis and has so far been the result of a regulatory process that can only be described as flawed. we have a responsibility to producers, packers, processors, retailers, and, yes, consumers to continue to examine this proposal's implications and act accordingly. in addition, over the past several months the cftc and other federal financial regulators have been engaged in writing unprecedented new regulations over the derivatives

market. as chairman pointed out to our committee yesterday, since september alone the cftc has issued 39 new rules proposals involving thousands of you pages of regulation. by comparison, before d.o.d.-frank -- dodd-frank, the cftc averaged about five rules per year. the speed with which the cftc is issuing new rules precludes their ability to conduct an adequate cost benefit analysis to ensure that the rules do not impose unnecessary or undue regulations on our financial system. and our economy. and unlike many of the provisions of dodd-frank, title 7 is not limited to financial burns. in fact it has the potential to impact every segment of our economy. from farmers and ranchers to manufacturers and energy companies to the fields of health care and technology. yet many of the rules that cftc

has proposed would substantially increase the cost of hedging. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lucas: i yield myself, madam speaker, an adigal 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yielded an additional 30 seconds. mr. lucas: many of the rules the cftc has proposed would substantially increase the cost of hedging for commercial end users, extending wall street regulations to main street companies. as we work to revive the economy and create new jobs, we simply cannot afford sweeping regulation that is are poorly vetted, and outweigh the benefits for our financial system or our economy or are crafted in the interest of speed rather than sound policy. the agriculture committee has set forth an aggressive oversight plan that will shine a bright light on these regulations and show the real world consequences of them. i hope the administration will work with us in our efforts. our nation's farmers, ranchers, small businesses are all counting on us to do it. thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to join in the discussion with my good friend and chairman lucas of the agriculture committee. as the chairman indicated yesterday on a bipartisan basis, we adopted the oversight plan such as what we have done in the past when we were in charge of the committee, working on a bipartisan basis, and i would argue that the committee under my jurisdiction did the oversight work that was necessary and we made the changes and addressed the issues as they came up. we made significant improvements in the farm bill. back in 2008 in terms of conservation programs, other kinds ever things, crop insurance -- kinds of things, crop insurance through the s.r.a. adopted in may. i would argue we did our work on the agriculture committee. a good part of the chairman's

time was talking about the e.p.a. and i couldn't concur with him more, but the problem is we don't have jurisdiction over the e.p.a. and i hope that under the new leadership here that we will be able to work with the committees that have jurisdiction so we can straighten out some of the things that are going on over in the e.p.a. and some of these other agencies. but all we can control is what we have under our jurisdiction in the agriculture committee and i can commit to you that the democrats on the committee will work with the republicans to make sure that we do the right things on the agriculture committee. that we follow the plan that we adopted yesterday. that we do the aggressive oversight. we are 100% in favor of that. and in terms of the issues that the chairman talked about that are under our jurisdiction, the gypsa law rule that's being proposed, the cftc rule being

proposed, these are still proposed rules and they are going through the process and i have some optimism that at the end of the day that those things are going to come to a point where they are reasonable and acceptable. if they are, we will take a look at it. in terms of the cftc, there are a lot of rules and regulations that they are in the process of implementing. . the reason they are doing it is because we asked them to do it. that's not something they're manufacturing over there, it's been drebted by the congress. i would argue that it's needed, you know. we had a situation, they were only doing five regulations a year before because we had a $600 trillion or $700 trillion market that was unregulated, completely in the dark and it caused -- it was a big part of

the financial crisis and collapse that we had. at the time we did the cfma back in 2000, we were told that the folks in the swap market were rich people they had -- they had to have $10 million even to get into this mark, they were gambling with their own money you know. really, it was none of our business, they were rich an knew what they were doing, you know, that they wanted to gamble their money, that was their business. the problem is, we find out that they weren't putting the money up, they weren't putting the capital and collateral behind these swaps and it almost took down the entire world financial system. i would argue that a lot of what the cftc is working on are things that have to be done, not that i'm a big fan of regulation but you know, in this case, the private sector went amok and, you know, in some of these areas

and i think we're going to have to require they put their money up, put up the capital and collateral, to make sure we don't get in this situation again where the public has to bail out these financial firms. and we heard yesterday from the secretary, he has no intention of regulating the end users. we give that exemption in the law and it looks like the way he's implemented the end users are not going to be subject to these capital an margin requirements. but on the other hand, the financial firms that qualify as swap dealers or swap participants are going to have to put their money up an it needs to happen. we don't want to get in this situation again. having said all of that, let's see what happens when -- with the rules that they come out at the cftc, let's see what happens with the final rules that come out with gipsa. they've had an open process, they've been listening, taking

thousands of comments, but if there are problems and they have gone beyond the law or if they've gone off in a direction they didn't intend, i will work with the chairman to make sure we get that straightened out. i am here today to pledge cooperation of the minority on these issues. i hope the chairman can convince his colleagues on these other committees that are driving us nuts in these areas that they will come up with some process where we can be involved to straighten some of that out. i would love to work with you on that. with that, we're with you 100%. we have no other speakers. i yield back the balance of my time and we look forward to working with the chairman and the other members to get the right kind of outcome. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, i yield to

the gentlelady from missouri for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hart ler: my family has been involved in farming for generations. like today's farmers, they worked hard investing their lives and resources to make a living for thems and to feed the world. they would be shocked today by the amount of government interference. the e.p.a. is proposing numerous proposals that are harmful to agriculture. one wants to regulate dust on the farm. they call it air quality. where i'm from it's called living in the country. in case they haven't heard, drive on a gravel road and planting seeds in dirt makes dust. we don't need washington to regulate dust, we need common sense. e.p.a. wants to do more. they are reviewing, again, the

registration of a common, useful herbside that's been used safely for -- herbicide that's been used safely for years. it's time to get government out of agriculture and preserve the farming heritage my parents, grandparents and so many others passed on to future generations. i yield back my time. the speaker: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. peterson: i recognize the gentleman from texas, one of our subcommittee chairmen, -- mr. lucas: i now recognize the gentleman from texas, one of the subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the risk committee has oversight over the commodities future trading corporation. historically, the cftc has been

a model organization but this reputation has begun to suffer. mr. conway spks a newfound mistrust -- mr. conaway: a newfound mistrust is taking hold. currently the consideration of cost an benefits is sorely lacking. by prioritizing speed over deliberations, they're producing poorly understood proposals and creating an irrational sequence of rule making. because so many rules hinge on other rules, the order in which they are drafted matters. the commission failed to provide certainty of the definition of a swap dealer and who may be captured in that deaf anything. they've tried to categorize various commercial ebtities as swaps dealers which makes no sense. frank-dodd was enacted. the intent was not to manage the individual risk on behalf of market participants but to

mitigate the broad, systemic risk in the system. but they're heading well beyond the statutory requirements of dodd-frank and attempting to micromanage risk across industries and sectors. to return to the swap dealer example, the cftc chairman stated there are roughly 15 to 20 swaps dealers around the globe that represent 99% of the markets in over the counter derivatives. compare that to his statements yesterday before the agriculture committee, he believes there are 200 entities captured by this definition this would categorize far more firms as swaps dealers and moves far beyond the intent of congress. it isn't difficult to see that the continued overreach of the obama administration has become the rule, not the exception. we and the agencies of this country owe it to the merp public to ensure the assorted regulatory schemes work to promote economic growth, competitiveness and inknow vague.

the cftc's current track seems to be sacrificing these principles for the sake of political expediency. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to another member of the agriculture committee, mr. rooney of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rooney: i rise in support of the regulations and jobs. in particular, i would like to discuss usda's paers and stock market gypsa. it should be considered for its unintended consequences, particularly for those it's supposed to protect, livestock producers. in the proposed rule, gypsa is attempting toover turn finding that the challenge adversely

affects or is likely to adversely affect competition is not necessary in all cases. in other words, a plaintiff would no longer have to show actual harm when challenging a packers activity. the rule would also ban packer-to-packer livestock sales an restrict dealers to representing a single packer. while intended to strengthen the cash market, these changes are likely to actually disrupt orderly market transactions. they will have far-reaching implications for livestock procurement. impacting prodeucers, packers, processors, retailers and consumers. it far exceeds congressional intent in the 2008 farm bill, lacks a credible economic analysis and is the result of a flawed regulatory process. a subcommittee hearing last year demonstrated that concerns are widespread in the livestock community and concerns are bipartisan here in congress.

we must continue to examine this proposal and act accordingly. the 2008 farm bill process considered numerous proposals to address life stock marketing and procurement issues. most of these ideas were rejected by congress and the usda was directed to conduct rule making on a narrow range of technical issues. the proposed rule that emerminged went far beyond the inten of congress and was seen by many as an agency trying to win via rule making what it failed to wip in courts. the usda determined this was in the a significant rule even though observers assert it will incur costs beyond the $100 million threshold for a significant rule. therefore no comprehensive economic analysis accompanied the proposed rule. at least 10 times in the proposed rule they state some version of the phrase, quote,

gypsa believes that potential benefits are expected to exceed costs, without offering any supporting evidence. the secretary has since indicated he will conduct a cost-benefit analysis. the taxpayers appropriated $13 million for this year's usda's office of chief economist. that office should have p. an analysis before the rule was proposed so it could have been available during the comment period. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex-pired. mr. rooney: mr. chairman, may i request an additional 30 seconds. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: concerns about the bill are broad and poirn. members of both parties raised questions about the scope, process and intent of this rule making. the american people spoke in november to avode -- avoid these kind of washington insider

bureaucratic nightmares. our work on this rule is far from complete an we must continue to -- continue our efforts, therefore i rise in support of the resolution. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the subcommittee chairwoman from ohio, mrs. schmidt, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. schmidt: i rise in support of this resolution and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. schmidt: i can't think of a single agency of the federal government that poses more threats to jobs and our economy an the environmental protection agency. as chairwoman of the nutrition an horticulture subcommittee, i'm especially alert to the threat the e.p.a. poses to those charged with providing food and fiber for our nation. there are so many examples of actions undertaken by this president's e.p.a. which defy

sound science, good judgment and will only result in putting america's farmers and ranchers out of business. for example, the e.p.a. has proposed a zero risk standard on pesticide spray drift. the e.p.a. is proposing a standard that even it admits is unachieveable. this proposed standard leave ours agricultural producers vulnerable to enormous compliance costs and total number of potential lawsuits. another example, the e.p.a. has written a proposed exems for milk from the oil spill prevention control and countermeasures program. this move puts the livelihoods of our dairy farmers in jeopardy because they could face enormous compliance costs. under this regulation, milk would be treated as if it were motor oil, thereby necessitating dairy farmers across the country to comply with costly,

burdensome rules designed to control storage of toxic substances. as far as i can tell, the agency's only stated reason for withdrawing this proposed exemption is that it was initiated urn the bush squad mrgs. -- under the bush administration. yet more than two years later, our dairy farmers are still in limbo. another example of the e.p.a.'s disconnect of science at the ex-pence of the economy is their unprecedented, multiyear, multimillion dollar re-evaluation of a popular herb side. only two years earlier, they completed a review of 6,000 scientific studies and concluded the product is safe. i suppose the logic for this re-reevaluation is with the trillions of dollars of deaf sits we face we have the money to burn on pet causes of environmental groups. as if the agency didn't have enough on its plate, we see that issued a draft pesticide

registration notice entitled false or misleading pesticide production brand name. note that the e.p.a. is now attempting to regulate not the safety of the product but the name of the product an even the name of the company that manufactures it. this note threatens to undermine the very investment in our economy that this president spoke about two weeks ago in this very chamber. the president's e.p.a. is threatening a potential loss of approximately $2.5 billion in brand equity for u.s. businesses. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair yields 308 more seconds. -- mr. lucas: the chair yields 30 more seconds. miss sha smith: this costs american farmers, businesses, and good old americans more money than they can afford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to a first-term subcommittee chairman

from pennsylvania, the gentleman from, mr. thompson, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in vong support of h.res. 72. this administration, e.p.a. has been allowed to operate unchecked by proposing regulations and actions not based on sound science and data. for example, an issue receiving more attention in pennsylvania is the proposed regulation of the chesapeake bay and surrounding watershed. these regulation vs. a devastating economic impact on my constituents. unquestionably the bay is in need and truly worthy of our support. however, the e.p.a.'s first shoot first and ask questions later approach will have detrimental economic impacts on rural communities. the e.p.a. through presidential executive order has created a federal backstop for watershed implementation plans. this action has prevented the state authority to implemmed their own stradges to clean up water shed.

the proposed accelerated timelines for court manneded -- court mandated loads. the tmdl is a diet to restrict new transit runoff. the e.p.a. has based chesapeake bay tmdl's on its own bay modeling. this model has been called into question by many, including an independent respected consulting firm on water issues. using the e.p.a.'s own data, they compared it against data from the usda which showed inconsistent assumptions between agencies. the head of the usda's natural resource conservation service has recently gone as far as to say that the e.p.a. as data on conservation practice is erroneous. agriculture is not receiving the credit it deserves towards reducing new try yet and acceptedment runoff. yet the e.p.a. is forcing bay states to move on accelerated mandates using the flawed model and limited feedback from the public end stakeholders. it has not performed any kind of

economic analysis of tmdl. continuing on this path will cost severe economic impact on producers in rural communities. for example the commonwealth of virginia estimates it will cost 4,665 per taxpayer to meet the tmdl requirements. in maryland estimates they are looking at 8,500 per taxpayer or $10 billion over the next 10 years. this is simply a fundamental difference between the approach of the agriculture committee and the strategy of this administration. the goal's the same. the vitality and health of the chesapeake bay. but the methods of achieving these goals could not be more different. the 2008 farm bill provide an incentive-based aid for farmers and ranchers to provide management practices which would have a direct result on improving water quality. but the administration simply does not want to give the time for these programs to work. instead, they have done what they have done -- been doing since taking office. overregulating farmers and ranchers and punishing states for not meeting certain arbitrary benchmarks. rural america cannot afford for the e.p.a. to continue this arbitrary regulation and not

recognize current conservation efforts. i strongly believe that we need to hit the pause button on the tmdl's and the study already being made through existing efforts being employed. i'm proud of the fact that the farmers are taking real action on the ground every day to improve water quality in the chesapeake bay region across the country. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i now yield to one of the senior members of the house agriculture committee on our subcommittee chairman, congressman johnson, three minutes from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, the comprehensive and detailed aalcy that we have already received from our distinguished chairman and my colleagues, i'm not sure what i can add but i'll try. article 1, section 1 of our constitution provides that all legislative powers to be granted to congress of the united states.

in fifth grade i had a teacher who taught us what was right at the time and was badly distorted since and that is we have three branches of government. executive branch to apply the law, a judicial branch to interpret it. and legislative branch to make the law. unfortunately that has been turned on its head. we used to have the conventional wisdom that as we left here that the people's life, liberty, and property were safe. in fact as my colleague and good friend, ron paul, said when we leave here we lose accountability and we turn the process over to un-elected bureaucrats. the purpose of those constitutional provisions is gibblet through elections, pop -- accountability through elections, popular will, yet this administration has consistently ignored separation of powers and legislative functions blatantly through un-elected, often unratified,

unaccountable nameless, faceless bureaucrats who inactually thwart the popular will and sound public polcy. american agriculture, the worldwide leader, creativity, and progress, the source of cheap food for a hungry world, is the prime target and victim. my colleagues have dealt very articulately with issues that price goals, restrictive fee, and overburdensome regulations. in addition specifically, madam speaker, members of the house, we have dealt and continue to deal with ap e.p.a., a usda, and u.s. department of transportation who department in areas of dust, backdoor cap and trade enactments, clean air act, hours ever service, g.m.o. coexistence, and otherwise. the key is this. none of these actions by themselves could ever pass the house or the senate. none of these usurpations of authority are authorized to the congress, and all ever these serve to add dramatically to the cost of doing business and reduce america's ability to feed our nation and help feed the world.

each one of us represents up to 800,000 people and each one of us has to face the voters every two years. we have a sworn constitutional obligation to the american people which is being twisted and subverted daily by perhaps well-meaning but nonetheless unresponsive people and agencies who have no practical scrutiny or control. this bill, i contend, madam speaker, mr. chairman, members of the house, starts the process of restoration of legislative powers and upholding our fundamental constitutional values and obligation to represent people rather than allowing people who are never elected, who are unaccountability to run our public policy. with that i yield. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i now turn to the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. gibbson: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise today in support of the resolution and to share the sentiments of our hardworking dairy farmers in upstate new york. when i talk with farmers and

other small business owners throughout the district, they constantly share with me the primary impediments to their growth. high taxes, out of balance regulation, spiraling health care cost, and rising energy costs. today i'll highlight one example of an onerous regulation. a bureaucratic overreach that the e.p.a. is threatening to visit upon our dairy farmers. because milk has animal fat, that the e.p.a. defines as a nonpetroleum-based oil, the e.p.a. is essentially treating our milk, our dairy products as a hazardous material. and if they do not get a waiver by november, our dairy farmers will have to invest in specialized containers and other equipment to be in compliance with new spill regulations. this will come directly out of their bottom line and it makes no sense. i think we can all agree that spilled milk, we don't want to see spilled milk. it's not a hard arduous material. i support this resolution because i want to help our family farmers thrive and

flourish. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the resolution and look forward to reviewing a number of regulations and orders from federal government agencies. one regulation i'd like to address today is the usda's departure from a science based regulatory system for biotech crafts. two weeks ago i spoke to a number of farm and agriculture groups from my district and they end kated real concern that the current politicization, regulatory process could set dangerous precedent for open polin nated and biocrops in the future. the usda has left the science-based coordinated framework between the usda, e.p.a., and f.d.a. that has been accepted throughout the world. by altering the process through use of rules approach rather than science, this could have a

significant negative impact on trade. in addition, i think it's important to make sure that all government agencies are allowed for a proper time for proposal of rules and regular laces. as a government we need a full understanding how our action also affect those governments by the rules. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i now yield one minute to the congresswoman from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of house resolution 72. since the becoming a member of congress there has been a reoccurring theme in almost all of my meetings with constituents. the overreaching and burdensome nature of regulatory authority and federal agencies. in my committee work just this week, i heard about the difficulties and the haphazard nature in which dodd-frank is

being implefmented in health care, education, and the national labor relations board. it is obvious that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry but a growing trend by the administration and their approach to implementing regulation. i would like to take a moment to talk specifically about the environmental protection agency's ruling. it would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and it is estimated the cost of paper would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in annual costs. the ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rule making decisions by the e.p.a. and other agencies. farmers have continually been faced with the overreaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeting, alabama -- feeding. alabama has a strong presence of agriculture -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i

recognize next for one minute my neighbor from across the line in kansas, the good gentleman from the big first district of kansas. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: i would like to thank chairman lucas for the time to speak on an issue near to my heart. mr. speaker, i came to washington hoping to bring some common sense to a city sorely lacking it. we have too many regulations many written by too many bureaucrats who have no idea what the real world is like. let me give you one real world example. regulators at the e.p.a. think that dust poses a serious health and pollution threat and have proposed significant reductions in the amount of dust that can be in the air. it's dry and windy in western kansas where i come from. when i drive on the dirt roads common in rural america, we throw dust in the area. the e.p.a. recommends spraying dirt on the dry road twice a day. obviously they have never been to kansas before. kansas is a hardworking people

and we don't have time to do this. frankly, mr. speaker, we neither have the water, either. to spray on the roads. i welcome the opportunity this resolution provides for us to bring these regulators in and give them a picture of what life is like in the real world outside of washington. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of house resolution 72. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. we all know this is a challenging time for many families across america. just like the rest of the country, folks in middle and south georgia are struggling because of this economy. you see, the government has taxed and spent the american home into a recession. in fact, madam speaker, the current administration and the last two years, spiling on regulation after regulation has

made it more difficult for small businesses and family farms to grow an create jobs. agencies like the e.p.a. and laws like the recently enacted financial regulatory reform bill stand to do nothing but kill jobs. as a member of the agriculture and armed services committee, i look forward to working with my colleagues to tackle the burdensome regulations at these federal agencies. president eisenhower famously said, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you are 1,000 miles away from the cornfield. we need to take an eraser to these rules and regulations the bureaucrats in washington are placing on the american small business owner. thank you, madam speaker. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: might i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma has 3 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself two minutes. with note to my colleagues on the floor as you have seen today, members of the house agriculture committee are very concerned about the impact that these regulatory issues have on farmers, ranchers, processors, on the american consumer. and we are very committed in working in a bipartisan way with our colleagues on the entire ag committee to try and make sure that this ownersome, burdensome, potentially economically destructive path that we have seem to have gotten on is reversed. we will use the oversight hearing process. we will use every tool available to us, working with other committees. we will in areas where perhaps we have some jurisdictional questions at least dwell upon the impact and the effect of direct regulation. i promise you, over the course of this session of congress, the next two years, it will be one of the highest focuses of the house agriculture committee. .

perhaps if we are successful we'll enlighten some unelected bureaucrats. perhaps, if we're successful, we'll prevent the implementation of rules and regulations that will prevent jobs from being destroyed but perhaps if they're implemented destroy jobs that are needed in this country. that's our effort and we pledge very much to do that and with that, madam speaker, i have no remaining speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker this week is the 100th anniversary of the birth of ronald reagan. i think it's fitting that we quote him, we're dealing with the burdens of increasing regulation creating a noncompetitive situation for american workers. mr. issa: it was 30 years ago that america was in a malaise. it was 30 years ago that americans found themselves without jobs and without hope.

it was 30 years ago that they elected ronald reagan because a man of hope and con conviction -- and conviction to tear down anything that impeded freedom and liberty, including the growth of government, so when ronald reagan said, now let there be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with goth. it is rather to make it work, work with us, not over us, to stand by our side, not ride on our back. government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it. foster productivity, not stifle it. when our committee put up american job creator -- americanjobcreators.com. we thought we might get a few hits. today the letters we have received from small and large businesses around the country, giving us with specificity regulations and regulatory

excesses that are stifling their ability to create jobs now is more pages than obamacare. more pages than any bill i've ever seen come from here are stacking up with specific problems that america is dealing with here today, whether it's e.p.a., osha, or just regulators who won't give an honest answer to a fair question based on laws in which we required them to provide answers. america is falling behind and american jobs are suffering. so madam speaker, our committee is dedicated to ensuring that regulatory reform occurs and occurs on our watch. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. cummings: i rise in support of h.r. 72. in fact, all the ranking members of committees debating h.res. 72 join me in voicing support for this resolution. i believe we should take every opportunity to thoughtfully and comprehensively reform regulations to ensure that they protect the health and welfare of the american people while not unduly impeding job creation. obviously, however, this resolution is unnecessary. our committee already convened a hearing on this exact topic just yesterday. we also adopted an oversight plan that specifically addresses the topic. so spending 10 hours debating this noncontroversial resolution does not seem to be the best use of members' time. importantly, any meaningful

discussion of regulatory reform must be based on a comprehensive examination that considers the costs and benefits of regulations that develops conclusions based on solid data and that seeks input from a wide variety of sources. president obama launched such an examination when he issued an executive order last month. requiring agencies to examine the costs and benefits of regulations to the overall economy. to small businesses, and to american workers and families. several of the witnesses who appeared before the committee yesterday testified that the president's initiative is an important first step. by the way, these were the witnesses that were called by the majority. i look forward to receiving the results of the president's review. i hope that our committee will also undertake a balanced and

thoughtful evaluation of regulations. and now instead of wasting two days debating a resolution we all agree with, we should use our valuable time to consider legislation that will actually create jobs. with our national unemployment rate at 9% an even higher among minority communities, as i told my committee yesterday, there are areas in my district where the unemployment rate probably approaching anywhere from 20% to 35% to 40%. we should be focusing on concrete proposals to get our economy moving. that's what america wants, that's what america sent us here for an that's what we should be about the business of doing. in his state of the union a message the president proposed an initiative to create jobs and encourage economic growth through the modernization of our

nation's infrastructure. on january 26, the president of the united states -- of the u.s. chamber of commerce, thomas donohue, and the president of the a.f.l. coy, richard trumka, issued a rare joint statement applauding this proposal. here's what they said, and i yet. whether it's building roads, bridges, high speed broad band, energy systems in schools, these projects not only create jobs and demand for businesses, they are also an investment in the building -- in building the modern infrastructure our country needs to compete in a global economy. similarly in a study released by the national transportation policy project in january of 2011, douglas eken and marvin watts concluded after extensive

analysis concluded, quote, wise investment in infrastructure can provide lasting gains while providing a more immediate stimulus to accelerate the nation's ongoing recovery from a devastating recession. these are exactly the kinds of bipartisan efforts our committee and the congress should be supporting. for this reason, i wrote yesterday to chairman of the committee congressman issa asking that we schedule a hearing on these issues. these job creating issues. i ask that we invite chamber -- the chamber and the afl-cio and transportation secretary ray lahood. i hope we will follow through on that idea. i think it would be a lot more productive in the debate we are having here today on this noncontroversial issue. importantly, as we consider such

investments, we must also ensure that programs are in place to support small and minority-owned businesses that are so critical to the success of our economy. according to a report published in 2010 by the joint economic committee, three out of every four workers in the united states are hired by a firm with fewer than 250 employees. these small businesses, which are the back bone of our economy, have struggled over the past two years with the lack of access to capital and minority owned businesses are particularly limited by their access to bonding. i would ask that the majority join us in trying to find ways to make sure that these businesses have an opportunity to be bonded. this is an issue i've started working on 30 years ago and we see roadblock after roadblock with regard to bonding for small

an minority businesses and women-owned businesses, we see it over an over and over again. that's what we need to be dealing with. those are the kinds tissue and another thing. that we find. is that if you were to go into my district and bring together small businesses of all kinds, they would tell you that the thing that that is stopping them from hire -- the thing that is stopping them from hiring people is things like access to capital. many of them have had their lines of credit taken away. that's very significant. anybody who has ran a small business knows that a line of credit is essential and extremely important for those small businesses to survive. so if we want to talk about trying to create jobs, which we should be, then i would hope we would address that issue today. so with regard to bonding, i am introducing legislation that would expand the department of transportation's ability to

assist disadvantaged business enterprises working in the transportation industry and obtaining bid, payment, and performance bonds. this legislation would also create a program through which up to five states could receive federal funding to implement their own bonding assistance programs. if the republican leader ship is serious, i mean, if they are really serious, about creating jobs and making investment in our nation's future, they should schedule time on the floor to consider legislation like this rather than squandering days on pointless debates guaranteed to create zero jobs. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from m.d. reserves the -- from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: as i introduce each of the members of the committee who

sat through the hearing with witnesses on one side giving the impediments to farming and manufacturing and mining, it is amazing that the gentleman quoted them, the gentleman from the other side of the aisle quoted them but ignored his own witness who disputed any cost benefit analysis being appropriate for looking at regulatory reform or even regulatory creation, prefering to simply say that all regulations should be judged on whether they do something, not what they cost. with that, i recognize for two minutes the secret from new hampshire. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the chairman for yielding his time. i rise to add my voice to those calling for the end of overregulation that is strangling our small businesses here in my home state of new hampshire and across oyou are nation. i believe this is a central focus of the challenges that we face in this 112th congress.

as other members have suggested and stated, our nation is run by small business owners. by employers who are hard working, put their time and energy and effort into creating something, building something, creating new jobs for new opportunities. in my home state of new hampshire, about 75% to 80% of the economy is dependent on small business. what i heard in the testimony in committee and what i'd like to convey today is my great and grave concern for the fact that every small business owner has to pay $10,585 per employee for the regulatory burdens and requirements. mr. guinta: that is a grand impediment to the creation of a small business opportunity. this is something that is centrally focused that we have to address as a congress and i

certainly urge this resolution -- the passage of this resolution, whether you are lars incorporated in rochester, new hampshire, or t enterprises, or y-tub's, this impediment disallows the incentive we believe is most important in america. i want to make sure we create an environment where small business can grow and succeed and employ people in our great state and in our nation. there are two interesting things going on in new hampshire, project lay bar a-- labor agreements that are infringing on the ability of a $35 million project being supported and the osha demands over our small businesses. i hope and trust we can pass this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i want to clear up something that the chair of the committee just said. that is not completely accurate. yesterday in our committee hearing we had dr. shapiro to testify, and the thing that he said was, is that when regulations are corrected, they are corrected -- created, they are created in protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the american people. basically what he was saying is that we want to make sure that while you look at the cost benefit analysis, you got to understand that sometimes it's kind of hard to quantify the benefit. mr. issa: would the gentleman yield? mr. cummings: i will not yield. i'm trying to make a point. and the benefit of not seeing a baby strangled in a crib, the benefit of making sure that people have clean water, the benefit of making sure that when we eat food, that that food is

healthy and that it's not poisoned. the benefit of seeing that if we eat a piece of fish it's not filled with listeria. those are the kinds of things he was talking about. he wasn't saying we should not look at it, but basically he was saying you got to understand that when we came to this congress and we put our hands up and we swore, we swore we would protect americans. and that's what this is all about. and i yield to the gentleman. mr. issa: i was only quoting what the gentleman said and reiterated he still supported. cost benefit analysis is neither sound in theory nor useful in practice. we asked him, he still he still standards behind that. mr. cummings: reclaiming my time. as i said before, again, he was saying that regulations are put into effect to protect americans. and i want to make it clear that

we on this side of the aisle, we have absolutely no problem with making sure that we look at regulations. if they are outdated, if they are overburdensome to the degree that we cannot -- there is no balance there. if they don't make sense, then we want to see those regulations go. but at the same time, what we also are saying is that it has to be a competitive examination -- comprehensive examination. i would think the chairman of the committee agree was me on that that whatever we look at, because we want whatever comes out of this congress to be credible, and to be based on integrity, and we want -- the american people to buy into it and hopefully this congress buy into it it would be a comprehensive view. we look at the total picture. not just the cost, benefit, but looking at it all. with that, madam chair, i yield to the gentleman from missouri.

i got so fired up here. missouri, mr. clay. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for four minutes. mr. clay: i thank my friend from maryland for yielding. madam speaker, my republican colleagues advocate a free market. unfettered by what they say are job-killing regulations. it seems like to them every regulation is job killing. we hear a lot about that. what we don't hear from the republican majority is anything about job growth. we don't hear any plans about job growth because the majority doesn't have any plans for job growth. in fact, the republicans spent the last two years obstructing pro-job growth policies. just to score political points. but they are wrong about regulation.

for example, on the environment we hear from republicans that environmental regulations are killing jobs, but the facts move just the opposite. based on recent estimates, total employment created by capital investments in the power sector over the next five years is estimated at 1.46 million jobs. that's an average of 290,000 jobs a year in each of the next five years, and in republicans are telling us are full of job-killing regulation. while we don't hear anything from the republicans, majority, about job growth, we do hear a lot about free markets. to them all we have to do is eliminate regulations and everything will be fine. well, at least for some of their wealthy corporate contributors. the rest of us, we are on our

own in the free market. madam speaker, i wonder if my republican colleagues think a market free of regulations will ensure the safety and reliability of the nation's roads, railways, and airways. i -- our transportation system allows american businesses to transport their goods to retailers and consumers and regulations that are safe and reliable. do they think a market free of regulations will enforce international agreements? agreements help american businesses sell their goods and services abroad and regulations protect and enforce those agreements. do they think a market free of regulations will defend american patents, copyrights, and trademarks? regulations protect american businesses against infringement,

and piracy. does the republican majority think a market free of regulation will protect hundreds of millions of americans who are their consumers and workers and ensure they continue safety and security. when they were in the minority republicans worked hard to slow or even end the recovery from an economic crisis that they created. the crisis that the president and democratic congress began to solve. the economic crisis that the new republican majority again for political reasons seems bent on bringing back. by eliminating the very regulation that create jobs. i want to know if my republican colleagues who have not advanced one single plan to grow jobs here in this country, do they want to eliminate all regulation? mr. issa: would the gentleman

yield? mr. clay: no, i don't yield. who are do they just want to eliminate regulation that is create jobs and protect americans and secure the economic and environmental future of this country? but they may also cut into the record profits of their wealthy contributors. madam speaker, instead of spending hours and days -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. clay: instead of spending hours and days on trying to score political points, the republican majority should be joining democrats and the president in focusing on growing jobs. regulations, pro-growth, job creating regulations are a necessary successful way we can continue the democratic recovery from the republican economic crisis. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. issa: under the rules of the house, isn't it true the limitations on taking down somebody's words based on casting aspersions or specific actions against an individual for example, not caring about americans or wanting children to die for lack of regulations, isn't it true that we can only do that if they cite a person not the republican party as a whole? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not be responding to that hypothetical question. mr. issa: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: would it be in order for me to bring a motion to take down the words based on that accusation that was just made against my entire party alleging that we want to roll back so the children are not protected, and the like? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not be responding to such a hypothetical. is the chair -- is the gentleman from california making such a demand? mr. issa: would it be in order for me to make such a demand?

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not be responding to such a hypothetical. if the demand is made -- mr. issa: madam speaker, i think we are bigger than those accusations regardless of it being likely to have been inappropriate by any standard. with that i recognize the gentlelady from new york, ms. buerkle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding his time. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 72. last november the american people sent a message to all levels of government. get the government out of the way so that employers can create new jobs. many in washington seek a solution to our country's economic slowdown through a revision of the tax code and broad cuts in all levels of spending. i support these initiatives but i do not believe they are enough.

we must provide a climate for economic growth and job creation. congress must relieve the american people from the hidden tax of excessive regulations and red tape. it is a tax that affects everyone. passed on every day in increased cost of products and services. to put things in perspective, according to a report issued last year by the small business administration, the approximate economic cost of regulation is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually. increased regulation stifle job creation and the expansion of businesses both large and small. it cripples their competitiveness in a global market while smothering the innovative spirit that has made the united states of america great. moreover, businesses are not the only ones who are harmed by

these unnecessary regulations. municipalities, school districts, not-for-profits, health care providers, and others serving the public pay a high cost to comply with the federal bureaucracy. regardless of who i talked to in the great state of new york, i ask, what regulations burden you? businesses of all sizes and from all industries talk about how they incur unnecessary overhead for compliance. school districts tell my office of stories receiving grants -- mr. issa: additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. buerkle: school districts are told of grants that will cost them two to five times the size of the grant to administer the grants. not all regulationed are unwarranted. most americans would agree for

regulatory protection and to assume otherwise of this committee is irresponsible. congress must address the cost to both business and the public before a new regulation is adopted. as members of congress, we cannot crede the -- creed the -- cede the responsibility. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, it gives me great honor to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the whip, mr. steny hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this resolution directs the house committees to review federal regulations for their effect on our economy. i agree with this resolution.

i will vote for this resolution. in fact, that's an oversight, of course, the committees should in fact be carrying out without this resolution. democrats believe that it's important to vigorously review regulations to make sure they are keeping pace with the changing economy. that's why president obama has already issued an executive order that calls for such a review. where regulations are duplicative, where they stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, where they hold job creation back without protecting consumers, they should be revised or ended. but let's also remember that federal regulations keep our drinking water and our air clean. protect our children, toys and food, put a check on abusive practices of insurance companies, and credit card companies to help control the kind of wall street gambling

that wrecked our economy a few years ago. as a matter of fact even though regulations were on the books, we know they were not enforced which led to literally the loss of trillions of dollars by homeowners, individuals, and businesses. we want regulations that protect americans and foster economic growth. and we'll call the committees to he review regulations with both of those goals in mind. there is a reason democrats have worked so hard to pass the make it in america agenda. an amenda wisconsin i'm particularly identified. we need to in that agenda if we are going to create the environment that i heard one of the members on this floor talking about, that will lead to businesses being able to make things in america and do so profitably, review regulation, review tax policies, review other government policies. to make sure that we are competitive in the global marketplace. .

but we also want to make sure we have consumers protected, as i said, the environment protected, because there should not be a tradeoff but a complimentary working of the two together. the new environment the federal government ought to work to create will promote growth, jobs and success of the american people. making it america not only means manufacturing it but it means succeeding in america. succeeding in global markets. i will, as i said, vote for this resolution. but the test will not be whether this resolution passes or fails. the test will be whether or not in fact we do the work that the american public expects us to do. the test will be whether our economy does succeed under the provisions we've made. i tell my friends on that side of the aisle, neither one of us have done perhaps the job that we should have done. but also -- may i have one --

mr. cummings: one additional minute. mr. hoyer: we also ought to be humbled by the fact that during the 30 years that i have been in office, for 20 of those years the republicans have been in charge of the executive department of government. just recently they were in charge. as a matter of fact, from 2001 to 2008. when we saw the deepest recession start and flourish and continue into this next administration, since the great depression. so let none of us on this floor point the finger at one another. the american peek want to see solutions, not angry rhetoric. the american people want to see this economy grow and create the jobs that they need. all of us ought to be committed to that objective. and we ought to project to the american people that we are going to come together and work together and legislate together

to achieve that end. as i said, i will vote for this resolution but the hard work is ahead of us. the 9 1/2 hours of debate that we have devoted to this bill -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: the adoption of this resolution could have been, as i'm sure most of us on this floor know, probably then been done by unanimous consent. because what it calls for is our responsibility and is absolutely essential if we are going to create the kind of environment to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs and be competitive in international markets. and i thank my friend for yielding the time and urge the adoption of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, i'd like to associate myself with the minority whip's statements that both sides over the years have not done enough, the 30 years that have built up of regulatory excess is something that both sides need to take

down and with that i recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for four minutes, to make his comments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for four minutes. mr. lankford: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. do i rise to support h.r. 72. when the framers of the constitution started writing, they began article 1 section 1 with a simple and clear statement. all legislative powers herein shall be vested in a congress. after great debate the priority concern was the possibility that some other entity other than congress would attempt to exercise legislative powers or compel their will on american citizens. if laws could be made by someone who has no accountability they could create any rule based on their own preferences and force unchecked spending on the will of their fellow citizens without accountability. this is an unfunded regulatory mandate. it is my concern that in the race to regulate we move from regulating american business to running state and local governments and have made them in effect federal government

extension employees charged with regulating all aspects of public and private business. every stage of business is now regulated from how to intervene an applicant to how to fire an employee. government paperwork abounds. every company needs compliance officers and attorneys just to make sure they're running their business based on the preferences of someone from some agency they've never even heard of. it's not real job creation. american companies want to produce products and services, not hire de facto government employees. we need real job growth. it's time for congress to assume its responsibility. if there's a grievous regulation it shouldn't be e.p.a.'s fault or even the executive branch's fault. it's ours. let me give you some examples of these unfunded mandates in my own home state of oklahoma. the city in oklahoma is drowning under a new e.p.a. requirement to filter the storm water, that's correct, filtering the rainwater. the city of bethany, oklahoma, spent over a quarter million dollars in 1987 to put in two water wells, only to be required

a few years later to take them out by e.p.a. because of their wastewater. then e.p.a. changed their wastewater requirements in 2006 and cost the city of bethany over $9 million. the street signs in bethany must also change to a new type of reflective materials to meet d.o.t. regulations, costing the city who knows how much. the oklahoma department of transportation has to go through millions of dollars of hoops to tear down an old bridge to replace it with a new bridge in the exact same spot. they have to navigate the clean water act, the national historic preservation act, the endangered species act, the migratory bird a act and many more while people drive over an old, deteriorating bridge. i will be the first to promote wheelchair ramps on sidewalks but federal interpretation of a.d.a. has been invoked where no connecting sidewalks even exist.

in oklahoma city where i live, such a wholesale directive results in curb ramps that terminate in vacant lots to a ditch, embankments and sometimes straight into a light pole. the desire to do the right thing sometimes leave noes room for common sense. we're regulating common sense out of governments and we're costing state and local taxpayers millions in unfunded mandates. sometimes our regulations don't cost money but they do cost trust and relationship between citizens and their federal governments. last christmas a community bank in oklahoma was told by a federal regulator that their employees had to take off the buttons that said, merry christmas, god is with us, and remove the scripture verse announcement on their board because it might cause someone to feel discriminated against who walked into the bank. this is a privately-owned business in america. -- privately owned business in america. every person in that community has lost trust with the commonsense leadership of the federal government because we've allowed unchecked regulation. the assumption that federal agencies are the only people who care about clean water, clean air, fair business practice, etc., is arrogant and misinformed.

i don't know anyone who loves the air, water and land in oklahoma more than oklahomans and i'm confident that is true for other states as well. we must take a serious look at unfunded mandates and regulations. we need to hear the cry of our cities, counties and states where they say, please stop the flood of regulations. they want two things. predictability and clearly defined limited scope. this is a bipartisan issue. we have common agreement with the other members in my subcommittee and we will immediately take this up next tuesday in our first subcommittee hearing. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair will advise the gentleman from california that he has 18 3/4 minutes remaining and the chair will advise the gentleman from maryland that he has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you very much.

any review of our regulatory structures or the orders that are issued therefrom must weigh the cost of regulations against their benefits. everyone who makes or installs air bags in cars, smoke detectors in office buildings, units in businesses and homes and tamper-proof packaging for food and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few, has a job thanks to regulation. and when we don't have adequate regulations bad things happen. we don't have to look that far. look at our financial crisis. look at the recession. a financial disaster was created by a lack of regulation and by erroneously relying on the narrow self-interest of corporation management to protect their own businesses.

let alone the common good. and this is according to alan greenspan, because mr. greenspan told our oversight committee a few years ago, this is a quote, i made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. last year the office of budget and management performed a cost benefit analysis of federal regulations which showed that the benefits of regulations far outweigh their costs. between 1999 and 2009 the estimated cost of regulations were between $43 billion and $5 billion. well, the estimated economic benefits were between $128 billion and $616 billion. that means during that 10-year

period the cost to benefit ratio of regulations was 1-2 based on o.m.b.'s lowest estimations and 1-14 based on o.m.b.'s highest estimations. so as we go into this great adventure about all of these regulations, we must look at the benefits of regulations, the economic benefits, the social benefits, the health benefits, if we're to come up with an accurate picture of the role of regulations in our society. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for four minutes. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the distinguished gentleman from california for yielding and for his good work on this resolution and a host of other issues in leading our committee. the president's expecttive order directing agencies to take into

account the cost of accumulative regulations is an important step , moves us in the right direction and something that we just frankly begin the understanding of, how the government should work relative to the private sector. job creators don't live in a world where they're only subject to one regulation by one agency. they're subject to a myriad of regulations and enforcements enforced by the e.p.a., department of labor, i.r.s., health and human services and on and on and on. the utility sector offers a fertile ground on how federal agencies should take into account the cumulative effect of regulations from 2009 to 2017 this agency will have to contend with no less than 35 separate regulatory deadlines. those affected say looming regulatory changes have caused two power plants to be shut down. the manufacturing sector, this industry is hit the hardest by cumulative regulatory costs with per firm costs at over $600,000. half a million dollars greater than the national average for

other industries. small manufacturers bear a larger burden with an estimated cost of $26,000 per employee, more than double the burden faced by other larger manufacturers. the impact of regulations is especially important on small business owners. they serve as both entrepreneurial leaders but also as a regulatory enforcer within their company. the more time spent complying with regulations is less time they can spend meeting the needs of tchare clients and customers, growing their business and most importantly creating jobs. you know, i had an experience a few years ago, one of our manufacturers, a very success business owner, we were meeting, he wanted to meet with our u.s. senator. i remember this meeting because i will remember forever. we were in the meeting and our constituents said to our u.s. senator, he said, senator, we can outcompete anybody, we are so efficient at what we do we can -- the way we manage our business, our efficiencies we put in place, we feel we can

outcompete anybody. what makes it tough to win in the international market, what makes it difficult to compete and grow jobs, what makes it really difficult is the stuff you guys do and he pointed right at the senator and it had an impact. he says, it's all the things we have to do to comply. that's what makes it difficult. the american worker, the american family, the american small business, they can outcompete anybody. let's get government off their back so they can do the things we've been doing in this country for 200-plus years, grow our economy, grow jobs, put families back to work, put people back to work and improve this situation. i look forward to the work that our subcommittee on regulatory affairs will focus on, understanding, trying to understand the cumulative impact that regulations impose on the job creators and with that, madam speaker, -- madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. teerny. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. tierney: thank you, madam

speaker. i think we're a little perplexed over here. there's nobody on this side of the aisle that doesn't feel that regulations ought to be reviewed. there's nobody on the other side that feels that way. and i think that everybody understands it's one of the roles of congress and particularly one of the roles of the government oversight and reform committee. it's in our rules. every committee has already passed an entire plan for doing oversight. so essentially the real question, we're spending 9 1/2 hours here today to give authority that already exists. so we're not spending 9 1/2 hours on dealing with helping 14 million americans who are out of work, instead we're not advancing any bill that would repair our economy or restore our manufacturing industry, we're not ensuring the country's global competitiveness, we're not enhancing our education system, we're not enhancing or reinvesting our public infrastructure, we're spending 9 1/2 hours allotting authority that already exists on that and that just doesn't seem to be a good use of the time of this house. .

it didn't stop chairman issa. it didn't stop hard money from having hours of a committee hearing yesterday when we beat the same drum over and over again. everybody understands that some regulation is sometimes taken to excess. sometimes the enforcement are taken in the wrong direction. i take a back seat to nobody. i spent four years as chairman of the subcommittee on foreign policy and national security. we had hearing after hearing exposing fraud, waste, and abuse in the billions in the defense department and related activities. yes, let's do it. let's not waste that time talking about what we are talking about. let's get out there and have the hearings. let's also understand what's going on here. there is one side of this debate, my friends on the republican side, who want to say the only factor to be considered when we look at regulation is its cost. that's it. if that were the case, we only focused on cost, there would probably be no regulations. if we look at our history we found it important and there was undeniable progress when we implemented regular laces on child labor, on civil rights

protections, five-day work weeks, cleaner lakes and rivers, clean air, seat belt and air bags, fire safety codes, and on and on. there's value in some of these regulations and also happen to be balanced against the cost. the office of management and budget did that, their report estimated that between 1999 and 2009 the cost of the regulations were about $43 billion to $55 billion, but they were outweighed by economic benefits that were between $128 billion and $16616 billion. if you -- $616 billion. if you look at the clean air act. 32 times higher than the cost of businesses. the clean air act has created jobs. lots of jobs. in 2010, 1.7 million americans were employed in environmental technology industries. 119,000 environmental tech companies produced $300 billion in revenues in 2010. we are exporting these

technologies. in 2008 the united states exported $43.8 billion in environmental technology. more than any other country in the world. madam speaker, let's be serious about this. we are talking about regulations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: let's not waste 9 1/2 hours talking about what we already have the authority to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, in section 2, article 1 asking for regulations that impede private sector job creation, i'm just sorry the other side doesn't understand that's not cost, that's jobs. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i'm here today because i represent those small business men trying to make a living in towns like erie pennsylvania. i got to tell you the rhetoric is off the charts.

what we need to see now are results. until we get government's boot off the throat of small businesspeople, allow them to move forward, do we want to be in the game? heavens yes. so does everybody else. we need to realize that all these action taxes recreate come from businesses that are profitable and people who are working. if we are talking about growing an economy, and if we are talking about cutting spending, and i do agree cutting spending is important. we better wake up and start to smell the coffee. we have overregulated these people to the point they don't want to be in this game anymore. we've got to wake up. i repeat that because we are missing the boat on a very vital thing that's happening right now this this country. we need to get onboard with this. i got to tell you, insiders in this beltway talk about too big to fail, i want to tell you what, for small businesspeople, you know what we are? too small to survive. we can't get help from the people we need. all we get is a lot of talk and overregulation. mr. chairman, i thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire,

madam speaker, how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: grant the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the president has begun a review of regulations, you would think the majority would do something like declare victory. instead they have an oversight hearing prematurely, a one-sided one. from business. instead of joining issue by calling in the agencies one by one to see what kind of a review the president is in fact doing. i favor government for the good and well, therefore i have always hated government bureaucracy and regulations that make government, even the best, look bad. i headed a federal agency. i believe i will be more

remembered for streamlining its processes than for the under lying mission. i eliminate add huge backlog of cases, which had already been carried to full stream. guess what? when we started to settle them we got more remedies. look what the majority has done. they changed the subject from jobs and reducing federal power. one way which they have done it is spend the first month on bills usurping control of local power or trying to and from the local jurisdiction. that's the opposite of federal -- what they have claimed they wanted to do. they institute the harsh anti-choice bill. fine. what is the district of columbia spending its local funds doing in such a bill? yesterday they introduced a bill to wipe out the local laws of a local jurisdiction and the supreme court found them to be, after the court found them to be -- they introduced a d.c.-only

private voucher bill not a national bill after compromise on vouchers for d.c. was already achieved. even though the district of columbia has the largest alternative -- has a home-rule alternative which is the largest alternative school system in the united states, almost half 6 our children -- of our children in public charter schools. our majority has taken regulations where there's a basis for areas of consensus -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. cummings: an additional 30 seconds. ms. norton: i'm grateful. the majority has taken regulation, a subject where there is a basis for areas of consensus and polarized it, they have broken their promises on jobs. look, no jobs bill. and reducing federal power by trying to literally usurp power from a local jurisdiction and dictate to that local jurisdiction from the federal government what it should be doing. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes from florida. mr. southerland: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. southerland: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me time. i rise today in support of this resolution and i commend the gentleman from maryland, the minority leader, for rising in support of this resolution and i would urge the rest of the members on the other side of the aisle to follow their leader in support of this resolution. as families struggle to pay their bills and small businesses falter, impact over regulation could not be more devastating than it currently is. i stand here today in supporting and representing the good hardworking men and women of florida's district two. i will tell you in florida we stand at nearly 12% unemployment. it is a historic number. and i will tell you the regulations that are coming through the e.p.a. are going to

further destroy and hamper job growth in our state. the e.p.a. has allied with environmental activists to finalize the nutrient criteria for rivers and lakes. these crippling regulations due to take effect this year will penalize the state of florida and could possibly destroy 14,500 agriculture jobs just in our state. according to the florida department of agriculture and university of florida study. it could cost cash strapped government entities across my state $21 billion in new water treatment facilities. i met this week with a member from a local municipality that said they just completed a $17 million project and if these regulations go into effect, that is going to be -- have to be repeated again. another $17 million on top of the $17 million that they just implemented. so it is time for washington to get out of the way and allow small businesses across my state and this great nation to create jobs.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, we would just say one thing to the gentleman that just spoke and that is we agree with the gentleman from maryland. we want a comprehensive look at these regulations. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from idaho, mr. lab bra dour. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. lab door: i want to briefly speak about the impact of an overbearing and environmental protect agency has in my district. i want to begin with an anecdote in the attempts to regulate almost everything that moves and breathes in idaho's first congressional district of the the environmental protection agency announced in the federal register a public meeting in boise where my constituents could come and provide oral comment. relying upon the e.p.a.'s notice in the federal register, my constituents attended to share

their thoughts with the e.p.a. only to be told that oral comments would not be accepted. my constituents tried to do the right thing and play by the rules, but when e.p.a. writes the rule book an ericeable or invisible inc. my constituents become -- ink my constituents become jaded. they are being treated unfairly by a federal bureaucracy that no longer cares if it obeys its rules. this body must no longer tolerate such action. we must also nottle to rate the job-killing regulations the e.p.a. dreams to implement. even though the current and past administrations have recognized that the clean air act is not appropriate for regulation of greenhouse gas, the e.p.a. nontheless has chosen to ignore those findings and greenhouse gases as though they endanger the public health and welfare. e.p.a. and other federal agencies led by the white house are also charging ahead with policies, using questionable climate change science under the guise of protecting vulnerable

or endangered species that they will do very little if anything to aid species but will most surely empower federal bureaucrats and environmental lawyers. these policies will further restrict access to water and land and further hit our already struggling agriculture and resource dependent community. finally, the e.p.a. and national marine fishery service ignores the best available data of farmers as they determine how best the registration affects salmon in the northwest. in an area which the administration failed fiscal and energy policies are inflating food prices, e.p.a. piles on with its procedures that add nothing but uncertainty to the process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. labrador: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cull,: -- mr. cummings: continue to reserve. mr. issa: how much time remains each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes. the and the gentleman from

maryland has 1 3/4. mr. issa: could i inquire do i have the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: yes, the gentleman from california has the right to close. mr. issa: with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, madam chair. i thank my committee chair for yielding time. i rise today in support of this resolution and recommending we review regulations and the order from federal agencies that they submit and control in the private sector. since the john set of the recession the driving policy in washington has been to grow our economy for the long term. some of our colleagues believe that we can achieve this by growing the federal government. however, more government and more regulations do not lead to more jobs. in 1988 ronald reagan stated that at the end it was free enterprise not government

regulation, not high taxes or big government spending, but free enterprise that led to the building of a great america. over the past two years the american business owner has seen darker economic days than this country has seen in generations. yet our businesses still push forward innovating and adapting to the increasingly global marketplace that we live in. our government must do the same thing. astonishingly a number of our colleagues believe the federal regulations actually lead to more jobs and more productivity. some have even called for more federal regulation to spur job growth. quite frankly i think that's insane. and i think most americans believe the same. after hearing from job creators yesterday in our oversight and government reform hearing, and job creators in my district, it's clear that the best way to help small business is america's job creators is to look in our

own backyard to see what onerous regulations and wasteful spending programs are getting in the way of free enterprise. that means a renewed commitment to tough government oversight and transparency. that's what this resolution does. this chamber must remain committed to enacting policies based on the principles ever ronald reagan, reducing the size of government, increasing its efficientcy, -- efficiency, and making it accountable to those it serves, the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire of the gentleman whether he has other -- additional witnesses? mr. issa: i have at least one additional speaker plus closing. mr. cummings: we continue to reserve. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california.

the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, with that i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to commend him and his committee for the hard work they're doing here today. while we look at bad rules, madam speaker, already on the books, let's not take new, worse rules on in the future. with the house and senate, it will be a tough job to repeal existing regulations and in light of the requirements of the 60-day votes, to bring something to the vote in the senate, it will be very difficult. but we have a special parliamentary tool to block new rules with the congressional review act which mandates that senate vote on blocking new regulations of just 30 members of the senate. so we can have closure in the senate with only 30 senators joining us -- cloture in the senate with only 30 senators joining us. today we face new attempts to

shut down the portland cement industry in our nation, costing thousands of jobs. we are having the e.p.a. take away texas' ability, undermining the economy of texas and destroying job growth in our state. we face h.h.s. scheme to kick small health insurers out of the market because they can't max the administrative -- match the administrative cost of the megainsurance competitors. but if we use our majority in this body to disapprove these bad rules, we can then convince our -- 30 of our senators to join us and go along with it, to bring it to the floor of the senate for a vote on a straight up or down vote. i think we have a very good chance to stop these new rules that are in the pipeline. madam speaker, i urge all members to join our efforts, to use the congressional review act, to fight bad rules and save jobs. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: madam speaker, as i said a little bit earlier, this is noncontroversial. we're on the same page and the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, said it quite appropriately. we believe in effective and efficient government. there's nothing more important. when government per foms effectively and efficiently we all benefit -- performs effectively and efficiently we all benefit. and i think the president was right when he issued an executive order, number 13563, when he said that we want to look at, uneffective, inefficient or excessively burdensome regulations, to modify and streamline our rules. that's what we're all about.

but i want to make sure that we do have that balance. on both sides. because of the fact that the american people are depending on us to be their line of defense. and as mr. stanley stewart said in his -- he was a fella who was part of the sago mine incident in west virginia, and i'll close with these words, and he said this to our legislators in a letter, he said, you were elected to represent the american people, but more importantly you are americans and at the very base of it all you are human beings. the safety of our american people should mean more to you than extra profits for big corporations, it seems wrong to justify the filling of corporate bank accounts with the blood of american workers and the tears of their families. with that, madam speaker, i yield back.

and urge all members to vote for the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to dr. gosar from arizona at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: madam speaker, red tape, the e.p.a., government regulations. when i travel my district, these words come up over and over again. these are not words of encouragement, these are words of frustration. small businesses across arizona are struggling to keep their doors open because government will not get out of the way. enough is enough. now is the time to make changes that will empower our nation and put our people back to work. take, for example, the navajo generating station in my district. they have the state-of-the-art technology that makes them one of the cleanest coal power plants in the country. yet the e.p.a. says this technology is not good enough. out of touch bureaucrats at the e.p.a. are threatening over 500

high-paying jobs in my district. over 80% which go to the navajo nation where unemployment is approaching 60%. the plant provides power to the major cities of arizona and 95% of the power to the central arizona projects canal. which in turn delivers 45% of the city of phoenix's projected water demand and 80% of tucson's projected water demand. the e.p.a.'s attempt to shut down the navajo generating station will put arizona's water and energy security at risk. what is worse, the navajo generating station is willing to comply with the e.p.a., yet the e.p.a. is imposing timelines that no businesses can reasonably meet. why, may you ask? because the e.p.a. is more concerned with their agenda than they are about the people of arizona. today i stand here asking my colleagues, the senate and the administration to listen to the people of my district. we have no more time to waste. we need to rein in government before it puts the rest of our

country out of business. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as may remain. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: in closing, madam speaker, the american people do not yet really know the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau. but they probably know better the s.e.c., the fcc -- f.c.c., the f.t.c., the consumer product safety counsel and, to be honest, i got really tied up in the rest of the letters they put here. none of them, i repeat, none of them are covered by the president's executive order. forever whatever the reason the president limited his executive order to the nonindependent agencies. not even calling on the independent agencies to begin a review. madam speaker, over the last half hour, we've heard again and again, my colleagues on the -- again and again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying this is frivolous, it's not necessary. yesterday they called the whole

hearing with american job creators, many of whom had responded to americanjobcreators.com, they called them sort of anecdotal or frivolous or hyperbole. madam speaker, it's time that we take seriously the loss of american jobs. today's resolution does have specificity, does deal with the fact that americans are suffering and regulations are part of our competitive challenge. madam speaker, i take steny hoyer at his word that he supports this and wants to work together. i take the president at his words that time to do this review. i don't take the bureaucrats at their word that like foxes guarding the hen house, if you go back and they will them to guard more carefully then you're any more likely to have anything other than less chickens in the morning. madam speaker, we cannot assume here in the house that over the last two years, when democrats controlled the house, the senate and the white house and did not did nothing to produce

relations, -- reduce regulations, in fact, increased them, and that the president who is currently increasing regulation without one piece of legislation, trying to get card checked through the back door and hundreds of other programs far beyond our demand, that if given the mandate to reregulate what they've regulated, that they won't in fact use it as a chance to expand a liberal agenda in a way that will further hurt the american jobs. we must be their hand in hand with this administration to make sure that every change in regulations is followed up with binding law that will in fact help the american people get back to work. so, madam speaker, i am absolutely convinced that this resolution is necessary as a first step to make it clear that the house of representatives is fully committed to getting americans working again and american jobs -- americanjobcreators.com and other sites that are trying to

collect this data from people who create jobs in america anlt private sector, we are going to continue to gather and disperse those areas that american job creators are finding are impediments to their creating the jobs in america. lastly, madam speaker, you will hear in the days and weeks to come about corporate profits in america and you'll hear about the great profit growth of some of our best-known corporations. after yesterday's hearing, i went back and checked. almost -- the profits have been disproportionately from overseas earnings in overseas labor and overseas development. meaning, madam speaker, do not look to corporate profits as the bell weather, do not look to the stock market as a bell weather. american jobs are created when american companies are incentivized and give be an opportunity to create jobs -- given an opportunity to create

jobs? america. that's what this resolution is about today. that's what the hearings and the markups will be in the days and weeks to come. that's the reason we cannot leave it to bureaucrats behind doors that created these problems, allowed them to in fact reevaluate their own sins. so, madam speaker, i am delighted today to support hows remain -- house resolution 72 and to urge its consideration and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from, the chair of the republican leadership, mr. walton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. wallet wallet thank you, madam speaker. mr. walden: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this bill. my wife and i were small business owners for nearly 22 years. i know what it's like to sign the front of a payroll check and to deal with government rules and regulations. here's a perfect example of what my farmers and ranchers face in oregon. these are new rules that are coming out from the environmental protection agency

that are relying on what they even termed as a national marine fishery service document that was less than transparent. this affects new set-asides if you use modern chem cams at all to grow america's food and the world's food. these are new setback provisions that are being required in buffer zones that could in some cases be from 100 to 1,000 feet along any body of water including intermittent streams. if you're from the dry side of oregon you have a lot of intermittent streams, they flow with runoff and then dry up. the practical effect though you is could lose most of your farm land. this is an example, run through their models, of what this could mean if this rule goes into effect. and would you take from 108 acres, which is the whole area here, and you would begin to reduce down the buffers to where you'd be able to farm less than 10 acres. that means that in this farm you could lose upwards of -- this

crop field now would produce 21 -- $21,000 income. under the federal government's rules if fully implemented you'd be down to $1,500. you can't farm if you lose much of your farm ground and go from 108 acres down to 10. this will occur all over the country, all over eastern and western oregon and it is an enormous federal government land gran grab that could take between 40% and 67% of farm lands that would be affected in oregon and in this case it's an 83% reduction if taken all the way to the thousand-foot buffer along these intermittent streams. ladies and gentlemen, we need to examine this and many other rules and regulations. look at their practical affect on the ground throughout the countryside. on the men and women who raise our food and produce the jobs in america and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina.

>> thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i heard -- mr. clyburn: i heard republicans talking about jobs. despite the fact that the democratic majority in the 111th congress brought america back from the brink of depression and presided over 10 straight months of private sector job growth, with republicans obstructing every step of the way, republicans sifted they would focus on jobs, -- insisted they would focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. but something must have happened to the republicans over the holidays because for the full month since the opening of the 112th congress, the republican majorities who haas done literally nothing to create jobs. . republicans have held votes on 11 bills that do things like denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, and

denying security funding to the area around the united nations building in new york. not a single one of these votes have created a single job for a single american. republicans are holding a host of committee hearings on issues like restricted acks is to -- access to women's legal health services and rolling back injured patients' legal rights. not a single one of the hearings has created or will create a single job for a single american. today we are talking and talking about a resolution that will instruct committees to conduct oversight, which they are supposed to do no matter what. this resolution would not create a single job for a single american. this week as our economic

recovery is just getting steamed, the republicans are proposing a spending bill that will curtail american innovation and clean energy and cut the number of cops on our streets. this will result in americans losing their jobs and america being less safe and less prepared to compete in the 21st century global economy. and create jobs years into the future. republicans talked last year about how they would focus on jobs. but it seems that when they decide to focus on jobs at all, they are focusing on how to eliminate jobs. madam speaker, i come from a district and a state where unemployment is unacceptably high and too many people have been out of work for much too long.

i honestly wish the republican majority would focus on common sense, pragmatic to create american jobs. if they decide to do this, they will find me a willing partner. but let's stop these shenanigans like we are seeing here today. i reserve the balance of my time. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: the cynicism on the part of the democratic leadership is interesting. it was just announced yesterday that the obama health care plan will net lose america 800,000 jobs. but it's also true it will create millions of jobs but it destroys millions more in net 800,000 jobs. the republican party is here because of the miserable failure of the democrat leadership in this house of representatives and our president who has ruined

millions of jobs in this country. that is why the republican party is here to do something about that. don't worry. we'll be adding millions of jobs. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to a freshman member of the republican leadership, the gentleman, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you, the gentleman from texas, for yielding me the time. madam speaker, every single day americans are asking, where are the jobs? the answer is simple. current regulations are destroying jobs. last year alone, government regulations cost businesses more than $1.7 trillion. as an example, this chart illustrates the significant burden that the clean air act imposes on pulp and paper businesses in my district. these are the regulations that could immact the industry --

impact the industry in the next 10 years with a price tag of $17 billion job killing dollars, $17 billion, another example, the f.d.a. has threatened general mills with regulating cheerios. cheerios. why? because they don't like the health claim benefits on the box. if we want to create more jobs in america, let's get the government out of the way and we can start with the 157,000 pages of regulation. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my leader from south carolina. the prior gentleman who spoke is right, americans are asking

where are the jobs? and the majority is saying, we'll get to that later. this week the first thing that they did was to try to rush to the floor without hearings or consideration an extension of the patriot act, which is a very serious and profound issue for the country, and it didn't work. then they brought to the floor a bill that was supposed to recover money from the united nations which we are all for, but the congressional budget office says it wouldn't actually save any money, the new york state police commissioner said, it would be harmful to his efforts to protect the people of new york against terrorism that might come up around the united nations, and i think the rest of the world said, why is the united states rocking the boat at a time when there is profound global crisis going on, the most dangerous area of the world? that didn't work.

they then brought to the floor this bill which commendably says that committees should look at whether there are regulations that don't make any sense, that are harmful to jobs and businesses in our country. they are right. we should do that. we are already doing it. in other words, each committee adopts what's called an oversight plan when it meets, talks about all the different things it wants to do, education in the work force, we did that, armed services, we did that. so we have now spent 9 1/2 hours debating whether we should keep doing something we are already doing and bring to the floor someday in the distant ozone future actual bills that might actually reduce such regulation . if that really weren't bad enough, the majority really switched this week from ignoring the jobs problem to worsening the jobs problem. because out of the view of the

public on this floor in their private meetings they are planning to bring to the floor next week a bill that will dramatically reduce investments that i think most people -- let me give you an example. we only know we read into the newspaper because my understanding is they have yet to post their spending bill online which they promised to do 72 hours before it comes up, but you can project this out that they are probably calling for a 0% cut in things like air traffic controllers. i want you -- 30% cut in things like air traffic controllers. think about this for a moment. putting aside the obvious safety consideration, i don't think any of us would put anyone we love or care about on a plane we think was safe. that's obviously true on both sides of the aisle. i'm not suggesting the other side wants to do that. but there are consequences to not having a full complement of air traffic controllers. and beyond the safety consideration is an economic consideration. how can you have a thriving

economy -- i would ask for an additional minute. mr. cummings: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: how can you have a thriving economy if people feel like they can't fly safely? i come from a state, new jersey, which prides on being the medicine chest of the world in our pharmaceutical industry. how can you have a cutting edge in pharmaceutical products if you lay off people from the f.d.a., the food and drug administration, that review the applications for new drugs? how can you have a supermarket industry that's thriving and employs millions of people in agriculture and food industries if the people who inspect our meat and milk and our food are not there? these are questions that are going to be debated and answered next week here. they do have an effect on jobs, a profoundly negative effect on jobs. we understand that there is a

common responsibility to enact sensible restraint on what our government spends. that's why democrats balanced the budget when president clinton was in office. that's why democrats passed a pay-as-you-go statute. and i would urge that we return to the business of the house and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from south dakota, a member of the republican leadership, mrs. noem. mrs. noem: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is all about the jobs and that's exactly what this republican majority has been fixated on ever since we have become control of this house. i will tell you specifically we recognize what we need to do to create jobs in this country is provide certainty, tax certainty, and right here in this resolution certainty that we are being clear that we are going to address the regulation that is are killing jobs in this country, that the democratic party has allowed to happen over

the last several years. we are going to change that today. i rise in support of this resolution because small business owners in south dakota and across this country are losing more of their bottom lines to red tape. this year and in the past several years than they have in decades. federal agencies continuously overstep their powers and impose new regulations which not only raises the cost of doing business, but feeds the uncertainty of doing business here in america. today's economy is uncertainty enough. the least we can do for our job creators is to provide them with stability by eliminating unnecessary burdens. the ep except ripe with examples of these burdens. this agency wants to penalize farmers for dust on their operations and what they produce. you can bet any south dakota farmer tending their livestock, bailing hay, or harvesting their crops think this is absurd. i want to thank you for letting me voice my opinions on these regulations. we will address the problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has 7 1/2 minutes remain the gentleman from texas has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california,. >> thank you very much ms. lee: i want to thank the gentleman from california. i strongly oppose h.res. 72. this does nothing to create jobs. secondly, it does nothing to address really the regulations and the policies that impact the poor and the long-term unemployed. now, i submitted an amendment to the resolution -- to this resolution that required each standing committee to review administrative actions or policies that reduce poverty and address the needs of the chronically unemployed.

however, the republican majority on the rules committee refused to include this modest but important provision. i'm forced to conclude that my republican colleagues don't quite understand the desperate conditions that confront the poor and long-term unemployed. within the resolution i see a list of directing action to committees to review regulations that impede, discourage, hurt, harm, or limit the ability of agencies to achieve specific policy objectives. however, there are no directions to address the pain and the misery experienced by millions of poor people and the chronically unemployed. in the united states the number of persons below the poverty line increased from 39.3 million in 2008 to 42.9 million in 2009. in california the rate increased from 4.8 million in 2008 to 5.1

million in 2009. yet the resolution before us gives marching orders to committees to identify regulations that impede, fail, hurt, or limit. i request not understand why the -- cannot understand why the majority does not want to identify regulation that is fail, hurt, or harm the poor and the chronically unemployed, nor limits the poor from achieving middle income stay stuss. this is not a partisan issue and we must all remember that poverty affects constituents that reside in republican and democratic districts. madam speaker, may i have 30 seconds? mr. clyburn: an additional minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. the new majority promised to provide a comprehensive plan to restore america to prosperity restore america to prosperity and to create