neutral arbitrator. that's all this does. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. it represents bad process and bad policy and should be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. as a general matter, the chair must remind members that remarks must be addressed to the chair and not to others in the second person, the chair is not referring to the last comments from the gentleman from pennsylvania. . mr. terry: move to strike the last words the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i rise in favor of this amendment because i believe in a free and open internet. it was december 21, just less than two months ago, that the internet lost its freedom when the f.c.c. on its own initiative

began or initiated an order, a rule, to start regulating the internet. hoe believes that -- who believes that by regulating it you are creating freedom? the system where it was unregulated, where the f.c.c. couldn't micromanage the internet, was the time period where innovation and investment occurred in the internet and cyberworld. that's where we got the e-bays and hulu's and apple tv's and all the great applications that we use today. so when i go back to my district and look my constituents in the eye, i can honestly say i am the one fighting to keep the

internet free and open. three points that are -- well, we need to discuss here today. first of all, the regulation of the internet by the f.c.c. is not a congressional initiative. it was three votes on the f.c.c. while congress was away. now they think they've got the power, but that's under dispute. there's already a lawsuit saying you don't have that authority. i don't believe they have the authority. it was an incredible stretch by the f.c.c. where they took a sentence out of section 706 of the telecom act of 1996 that actually used a phrase about data and that the f.c.c. can't put up barriers that somehow they assume now that they have power from that phrase to start

implementing and putting in barriers. i worry that these new rules and regulations controlling the internet will stifle investment and innovation in the long run. let's look at what this order does that will in fact -- affect our investment. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. on the investment side, the order, the power that the f.c.c. has to regulate says that they -- and the cyberworld there can't be discrimination. who wants discrimination? you find out that it is maybe a business model for example, you pay for what you use as a it upical business model. if you are at one megabit, that

may be $14 or seven megabits of speed is a higher price. 30 megabits is going to be even a higher price. but the issue is, and some people now say that is discrimination, unreasonable discrimination, in fact i have an email, newsletter fundraiser a company that stops virus, i'm a client or soon won't be, but listen to this, this is their interpretation of the f.c.c.'s neutrality, what net neutrality mean for you. by the way, mr. speaker, i would like unanimous consent to submit this e newsletter into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. terry: here's what it is. deregulation is eliminating the regulation of the internet could mean higher internet access prices as i.s.p.'s institute a

tiered model that offer speedier down loads for higher-paying customers. that is the current business model. you pay for what you use. if the business model is struck down by the f.c.c., you won't have the investment, you won't have an expansion of the internet. i think it will stifle innovation. and frankly the creator, the godfather, the grandfather of the internet, dr. david farber, agrees with this position. he has co-written an article that basically says if you put regulators in charge of the internet instead of engineers, it will reduce innovation. make sense. because now if you are a big enough company like a google or an ebay, you just hire lawyers

and lobbyists to lobby the f.c.c. instead of hiring engineers to innovate. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the gentleman has spoke twice on this issue, was that by unanimous consent? mr. terry: would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i want to answer my question first. the chair: the chair believes that the gentleman from nebraska spoke only once. mr. dicks: yield to me, please. mr. terry: i yield. i spoke one time right now. i don't know who you are confusing me with. mr. dicks: i thought you spoke twice, i'm sorry. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the member from louisiana rise?

>> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong support of this amendment because i think if you look across the country, of course we had a water shed election in november, if you listen to the voters, and so many of us who did hold town hall meetings who listen to people all throughout this country, people are tired of all of these government regulations that are killing jobs and stifling innovation. mr. scalise: in fact most people will tell you they are scared to death about the concept of the federal government regulating the internet. so this net neutrality ruling that came out by the f.c.c. in a 3-2 decision where all the democrats voted for net neutrality for this regulation and all the republicans voted against, the f.c.c. rarely ever has any kind of major ruling like this on a divided vote. i think it shows you that there's already controversy. the courts have already said that they don't necessarily have the authority to do this.

that's why as my colleague from nebraska just pointed out, there's already litigation that's going on because we think the f.c.c. overstepped their boundaries. you had a bipartisan group in congress that came together and said we don't want this kind of action going forward. this is something that should be done and solved in the halls of congress. and if there's a problem, first of all, of course our colleagues on the other side, mr. chairman, haven't even identified a problem. if you actually want to look at it, i think if you look throughout our economy with all of the troubles that we have in our economy, one of the few segments that's growing is the technology segment of our economy. because of the innovation that has been allowed to thrive primarily due to the lack of government regulation. and i think that goes to the heart of the real difference between our side and their side is, they are the party of regulation that stifles job growth, that stifles innovation, and we are the party that says, let's don't allow a college student at harvard university to have the ability to come up with

an idea. he dropped out of harvard and is now a billionaire. in fact maybe the largest percentage of billionaires in this country are harvard dropouts who actually went out and came up with ideas to innovate using the internet and are billionaires and they are creating thousands and millions of jobs, good high-paying jobs. these are american jobs. yet they through this net neutrality ruling want to stifle that innovation. so the first thing i guess we would have to ask is, was net neutrality the reason we were able to have that innovation that led to facebook? net neutrality, the reason we had such a proliferation of broadband. they are not calling saying we want the government to come regulate the internet now because there's a problem. they say just the opposite. they say, look at this innovation that's happening. we had a hearing yesterday about this issue with the f.c.c. one of the f.c.c. commissioners pointed out over the last 10 years, mr. chairman, over the

last 10 years over $500 billion, billion with a b, of private investment has made to develop broadband throughout the country. this is without any kind of taxpayer money. this is private sector money being put into the marketplace to go and create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technologies that allow you to view and use all the kind of apps available on these devices. that was done without net neutrality. they tell you you need that neutrality to have this innovation. they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place when this innovation happened. most people will tell you that net neutrality is one of the things that's in the way of this kind of innovation. we are already starting to see a stifling of the growth, a stifling of the private investment because of these threats of new regulations coming in from the f.c.c. that's why it's so important that this amendment actually addresses this problem and says,

federal government get your hands off of the internet, allow the innovation to continue because it happens. and it's continuing to happen without that kind of government intervention that they so strongly want through net neutrality. when you look -- they talk about these companies that have said this is a great thing. net neutrality is a great thing. some of the companies they listed, they failed to mention in that same letter, the company said, well, maybe we can live with it, but they also have some concerns about it. i didn't hear them mentioning that when they were talking about these companies. and you look at all of the innovation that has happened. we are talking about massive job growth. here at a time when our main focus needs to be on jobs, you've got the government coming in with yet another threat of regulation that will stifle innovation and run more jobs out of this country. to countries where they don't tell you how to operate your network, they don't tell you what to do with the billions of dollars you are investing to build broadband.

maybe our friends on the other side want the federal government to be running the internet because they only want the government to be the one that can tell you what you can and can't do. in fact in our hearing yesterday with the f.c.c. chairman we pointed out that in the net neutrality ruling it allows the federal government to pick winners and losers. that's not what we should be about. we should be about innovation. we should be about passing her amendment to allow that innovation to grow and get rid of that neutrality. thank you. i wield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise the chair: is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. it is important that we look at what this process of net neutrality is. i rise in support of the resolution that we are bringing to block this funding at the f.c.c. from being used to implement it. bear in mind, and i think it's important we realize this and remember it, after we adjourned from the last congress and all

headed home at christmas, the f.c.c. convened, and the f.c.c. decided that they were going to go where they had no authority to go. they were going to go in and implement net neutrality rules. now, bear in mind that this body has stood in a bipartisan manner again the f.c.c. taking this action. we have had over 300 members stand and move forward with letters stating that they didn't the f.c.c. should move forward. this is an issue that should come back to congress. but christmas week they moved forward. and the gentleman from louisiana is exactly right in his comments. we heard from the f.c.c. yesterday. and we heard about how they plan to move forward in this. bear in mind they have not done any analysis that would indicate

there has been a market failure. indeed, by the actions taken in this body in 1996 and the tellycome act, a -- tellcome act -- telecom act, adopting a hands off approach to the internet and broadband, what we were able to do is see this country go from eight million to over 200 million users. 95% of the country has access. over 90%, get this, according to the f.c.c., over 90% of those that have internet access are satisfied with what they have. that has been done because we left it alone. government created the environment. they made the spectrum available much companies came in, bid on that spectrum, secured that spectrum, they spent 60 billion private sector job creating

dollars every single year to build and maintain that spectrum. when we talk about the creative economy, when we talk about 21st century jobs growth, much of it is based off of technologies that are going to be attached to, developed, or applied to broadband, the internet, and websites. it is in support of this resolution that we should all stand, we should vote yes, we should rein in some of these federal government agencies, we should stop the f.c.c. from enacting the fairness doctrine for the internet. i yield back. . the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> on that i ask for a recorded

vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the chair will -- the gentlelady will suspend. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 334 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. lowey of new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, -- >> mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentleman

from -- >> we're prepared to accept the lady's amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentlelady. mrs. lowey: statement in the record. the chair: without objection. the question is on the gentlewoman from new york's amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. wolwol mr. chairman, i offer up amendment -- mr. wolf: -- wolwol mr. chairman, i offer up -- ms. woolsey: mr. chairman, i off up an amendment. the chair: the chair will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. woolsey of california. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. chairman, amendment 413 states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used in department of defense overseas

contingency operations budget for military operations in afghanistan until the president seeks to negotiate and enter into a bilateral status of forces agreement with afghanistan. mr. chairman, we've had troops deployed in afghanistan for nearly a decade now, making in the longest war in our nation's history, costing more than $378 billion with no real end in sight. close to 1,500 brave americans have been killed and they've been killed in the line of duty there. roughly 10,000 have been wounded. and yet the united states does not have a status of forces agreement with afghanistan. the sofa is a very basic tool that spells out the terms of u.s. military operations in a given country. the united states is party to more than 100 such agreements for engagements great and

engagements small, including micronesia. we have a sofa with iraq, signed in the year 2008. which sets out a deadline for complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year. sofa agreements determine how the laws of the foreign jurisdiction should be applied to u.s. personnel while in that country. they lay the foundation in a number of areas, including economic, cultural and law enforcement matters. so, it's beyond irresponsible, mr. chairman, that in afghanistan the country who we are currently waging our longest and most expensive war, we have so much -- we have no such agreement. there is no formal structure to provide rules governing the presence of hundreds of thousands of americans in that sovereign nation. this must end. it's both morally and fiscally

irresponsible. and that's why i've submitted this amendment. it requires the president to negotiate and enter into a bilateral sofa with the government of afghanistan. a sofa would establish that the temporary presence of u.s. troops in afghanistan is at the request and invitation of the host government. it would prohibit permanent military bases in afghanistan and it would provide a date, no later than one year after the signing of the agreement, for complete safe and oralerly redeployment. that includes armed forces, civilian d.o.d. employees and military contractors. without a sofa, mr. chairman, a sofa with afghanistan, our leaders can continue to extend our occupation indefinitely while the cost surges, our

deficit rises and our economy falters. that is poor military strategy and poor fiscal planning. a sofa provides certainty and clarity about what we're doing in afghanistan and how much longer we need to be there. it would provide the framework and momentum for redeployment consistent with the terms of the iraq sofa. my amendment would move us a critical step closer to an end to this disastrous war, the safe return of our troops back home and taxpayers' dollars invested in domestic needs right here in the united states. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states, an

amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair will rule. the amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of funds in the bill. as such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 516 is printed in the congressional record. today i offer an amendment that is long overdue. last june a live big head asian carp was discovered six miles from lake michigan, well past the electric barrier. this discovery -- all right.

the chair: does the gentleman wish to offer the amendment? >> yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 516 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. camp of michigan. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. camp: well, thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, last june a live big head asian carp was discovered six miles from lake michigan well past the electric barrier. this discovery shows that asian carp are one of the world's most rampant invasive species are at the doorstep of the great lakes. weighing up to 100 pounds, spanning over six feet and eating half pair body weight daily, they have the ability to decimate fish populations indigenous to the great lakes. these bottom feeders would destroy the region's fishing industry as well as the 800,000 jobs that are supported by it. to prevent this catastrophe, ecological experts have said that closing the locks that

separate the illinois river from lake michigan is the single most important step we can take to prevent these species from entering the great lakes. in 2009 the michigan attorney general filed a petition in federal court to direct the u.s. army corps of engineers to immediately close the locks. this petition was supported by wisconsin, minnesota, ohio, indiana, new york and pennsylvania. unfortunately the court denied the petition. but after the court's decision i introduced the carp act that would immediately close the locks and since then, despite the imminent threat of asian carp, the administration has refused to close the locks and all we have received is promises of studies that will take years to complete. will you surely hear arguments from those opposed to closing the locks that doing so will disrupt the movement of cargo and cause serious economic harm to the region. economists who have examined those claims have found them to be grossly exaggerated. an economic study conducted in

2010 which i will insert in the record under general leave found that if cargo passing through the locks had to be transported by land it would increase truck traffic in the surrounding area by only 1/10 -- .12% or the equivalent of adding two additional freight trains to the 500 leaving the region each day. any supposed economic impact of closing the locks would pale in comparison to the multibillion-dollar industry that would be wiped out by asian carp. the state of michigan's response to the administration's asian carp framework pointed out, and i quote, the framework statement that the chicago lock is the nation's second busiest ignores the fact that in 2008 only 39 loaded barges carrying approximately 100,000 tons of cargo moved through the lock. moreover, according to the corps' own data, the 2008 vessel traffic consisted of 34,000, not 50,000 vessels, mainly recreational water craft.

cat nal is only nine feet deep in some areas -- the canal is only nine feet deep in some areas. this will tie the hands of the corps in assisting flood emergencies, those claims are not accurate. the corps has sufficient authority to protect human life and property in the event of flooding and other disasters under the authority granted to it by the flood control and coastal emergencies act and other corps regulations. those authorities allow district commanders to issue a declaration of emergency and use corps resources to help state and local authorities respond. opening the locks to deal with flooding is the exact type of scenario this authority is intended for. mr. chairman, every day of inaction puts the great lakes ecosystem, the largest body of fresh water in the world, and the 800,000 jobs sustained at risk. inaction is unacceptable and i urge all members to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. chairman, to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the rec missionnition and i stand -- recognition and i stand to oppose the gentleman's amendment. first of all, also to make the observation, representing the northwest corner of the state of indiana, that i believe the gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that the state of indiana supports the closure of the locks. it is my understanding that the state of indiana opposes the closing of the locks. mr. visclosky: i would agree with the gentleman's assertion that we face a very serious problem as far as the carp and i and others have certainly joined in that concern. as a member of the energy and water subcommittee for over eight decades -- a decade, we have been working on this particular problem, not only with the army corps of engineers, but with an assortment of state and federal regulatory bodies, because no one wants carps in the great

lakes. but i would emphasize to this body that it is a work in progress and at this point the closure of the locks is uncalled for. the second point, and the gentleman talks about the economy, there is an economic issue. speaking for the state of indiana, i would point out if those locks were to close the impact as far as a loss to economic activity in the state of indiana is $1.9 billion and 17,655 jobs in indiana would be affected. we're trying to create jobs in this economy, not strike them from beneath us. and, finally, this issue is not without controversy. it has ended up in the courts. the gentleman is absolutely correct about that. twice the united states supreme court has rejected arguments by the michigan attorney general that closing the locks is eminently needed at this point

in time. last year the state of michigan brought the question of lock closure before the u.s. district court for the northern district of illinois. on december 2, judge robert dow ruled against the state of michigan on their request for a preliminary injunction, splabing -- explaining that the lock closure could inflict certain harm on the economy and that the state of michigan had failed to demonstrate that the asian carp presented an ecological threat to the great lakes that was eminent. . i urge my creation to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. i would be happy to yield. >> at the opening of the remarks when you said you were involved in this issue for more than a decade, the problem we have is we have run out of time. mr. camp: since 2009 when edna was found north of the locks, and now -- mr. visclosky: i understand the

finding of d.n.a. that is not carp. again everyone is working on keeping the carps out of the lake. the locks are not impermeable, either. we have court intervex and -- intervention and court rulings. and i again encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady -- mrs. biggert: strike the webbingry sit number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: this is an issue that has grown and grown and grown. let me say i would agree with the gentleman from michigan that we do not want the asian carp to be able to get into the great lakes and into lake michigan first. we have been working on this issue for 12 years. and really what makes me upset to think that they seem to say, well, nothing has happened and

now it's an emergency that the asian carp are going to get into lake michigan. let me tell you that we have set up two electronic disbursal barriers in my district to stop the asian carp from getting through. this is the only path from the gulf of mexico to the great lakes. as the two barriers are there. the asian carp are 42 miles from the city of chicago. this is emergency and they have 42 miles to go. they have moved very slowly, most of the population of asian carp are in the illinois river around shanaha. right now they have a contract with china to send the asian carp over to be used as food in china. the army corps of engineers has been doing everything. this is for their last 12 years.

the congress has funded this. to make sure that those asian carp never reach the great lakes. if they do, it would be devastating. things that have happened, the two disbursal barriers, bubble barriers, ok againation -- oxygenation, the bypass screening barriers to combat the asian carp. the problem is, it's not just the carp will get in there, and the gentleman from michigan raised a question of whether this is the only way that the army corps is said to stop the carp. it is not. in fact the army corps has said even if the locks are closed the asian carp will be able to get through those locks. this is not the answer.

the answer is to find all these ways to combat that. invasive species are hard to deal with. i think what the army corps and all the other agencies have been doing is something that we will be able to contain them and eventually i have been on fish kills before, there were 22,000 fish that were killed to make sure that these asian carp had not gotten beyond the barriers. not one of these fish was an asian carp. but the problems that we are really facing are economic devastating to the state of illinois. devastating to the states below illinois, down to the gulf of mexico, devastating to anyone that is using the locks to send goods back and forth. in fact, we are facing 800,000 jobs lost. with the barge traffic. people don't realize how much this is used because of the

barge. you are not stopped by a barge when the gates go down. you are not stopped having the barge on the streets. what has been determined if we were to shut down the barge traffic, it would take -- no, we just put them on the rail or we put them on trucks. if we were to put these on trucks, if you were to take and line up the trucks, from the east coast to the west coast, line them all up across the country and then put them all back, going back to the east coast, that's how many trucks would be to be able to move the asphalt, the salt, the coal, all of these big, big items that are used and used in the economic -- as well as the food and everything else that goes up and down. i think that the -- the corps

has testified all these things are working. there is another study out. we have got to get this right. but having worked for 12 years on this, it really upsets me when the gentleman states a study from the wayne state it will only cost $4.5 million in damages. oh, no. the barge people estimate at least $29 billion. this bill was to make sure that we can get the economy back going, that we can get -- create the jobs. this will destroy jobs. i'm also talking about flooding. it will flood the city of chicago and it will flood 124 suburbs. i urge a negative vote on this. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: another amendment is currently pending.

for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my friend from michigan, i appreciate his interest in this issue. i have to strongly stand up and oppose it, though. the 11th in illinois, which is my district, is very, very focused and very reliant upon the ability to move commerce. the ability to have transportation, the ability for free flow of goods back and forth. that's a maimingor, major industry in my district. a lot of jobs rely on that. one of the great assets we have is the ability to float goods. that's a great thing. the fact of the matter is, when we talk about closing the locks and dams, we talk about the entire chicago region's water and sewer infrastructure system is built on the idea that water flows out of lake michigan via the lock system and cutting those off would completely devastate the area.

possibly closing the locks permanently is totally not a solution to the problem. as most people have seen the locks themselves are not even cleatly sealed, even when closed for allowing for some -- it still allows for some leakage. at a time when we are addressing a continuing resolution, we should give the army corps of engineers time to finish their study. mr. kinzinger: let's continue to be cautious. we are talking about $30 billion in commerce that's going to be affected in my area because we want to quickly make a judgment on this. i understand the passion. i understand the concern. but let's be very cautious. at a time when the chicago area, when my district has an economic downturn and people are waking up everyday wondering if they are going to be able to feed their families or if they are going to have a job the next day, or people are driving on the interstates wondering if they can get to work on time because there's already enough trucks. we want to add more and more trucks if we close these. that's the absolute wrong answer to this.

so i'm asking for -- let's defeat this in this continuing resolution. let's give the army corps of engineers time they need. i ask my fellow colleagues to stand up and oppose this. it's too quick. the time is we have to be cautious. we have to wait. we have to see. when we took the majority, one of the things we talked about is being cautious when we get involved in free market and commerce. we have talked about that caution and what we want to do to create jobs and what we want to do to allow people to get back to work and solve this deficit not just by cutting spending, but by cutting the unemployment rate. i'm telling you, this would be terribly devastating. for the people in illinois. for the people in the 11th district. and frankly for folks in the region. mr. camp: i just want to comment the gentleman from illinois mentioned her 12-year involvement in this issue. she and i worked very hard in

2006 to get the first funding for the electronic barrier. that was five years ago. to wait for the study that i hear my colleagues call for is another five years. how much time is it going to take before we eliminate the threats to the entire great lakes ecosystem. with that i yield back and appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. kinzinger: this takes time. when we talk about affecting $30 billion in economic commerce, i would expect that to take some time. now, again, i appreciate the concern. i appreciate everything we are dealing with. this is a very serious issue. my goodness, the people in my district are already waking up wondering if they are going to have a job tomorrow, begging the free market to work. if we want to take this up at a later time, fine. is it really appropriate when we are debating hundreds of amendments to a continuing resolution for this to be the area where we do something that's frankly been working or has been in study for five years

and has a lot more to go? with that i yield back and thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois, for what purpose do i seek recognition? -- do you seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman i rise today in opposition to this amendment. as a resident of the chicagoland area and a lifelong resident of the state of illinois, this amendment would have devastating implications to the economy. right now we need jobs. everybody on both sides of the aisle has been talking about how we need to jump-start the economy and put people back to work. this is an amendment, and i have a great amendment of respect for the chairman and him and his work, but i this is this is an amendment that is going to have devastating implications to people all across that region. mr. dold: it's going to cost about $29 billion. when we look at the amount of commerce that's going to be

coming up from the gulf of mexico through the mississippi river into the chicagoland area, and yes, through the great lakes and back and forth, this is something that we must, at this point in time, not rush to judgment. i recognize that we have been studying this problem for a period of time. i recognize that there's actually even interim studies. in fact there's an interim study even out. interim study number three has been actually out allowing us to move forward and try to address some of the problem. i would ask my colleagues we do not rush to judgment. this is a decision that will have an enormous effect on thousands of jobs and on commerce across the great lakes going actually down to the mississippi river into the gulf. today when we are talking about jobs and the economy, we have to look at how many things that we can promote. i spent time in the locks. i have gone through the locks several times. i use them not only for recreational use but i also see the barges come through.

this is a very active lock. and it's one that we need to make sure is alive and well. i do want to recognize that we have a problem with asian carp. it's not one we want to ignore. and certainly please who are i am not saying we should ignore it. i think we need to continue the studies. we need to look at alternative ways to prevent it from invading the great lakes. no one is going to be a greater proponent of the great lakes than i am, but this is an amendment that i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise up and stand against. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i simply rise to concur with the last group of speakers who have indicated that they were in opposition to this amendment.

i have worked with individuals in the state of illinois for the last several years. my congressional district runs right along lake michigan. and we have had a tremendous amount of effort to try and resolve this problem. it has not been resolved, and i would plead for more time, more study, more opportunity to come up with the resolution that works for all of the great lakes area, not just for some to the debt riment of other -- detriment of others. i strongly oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: i rise to strike the requisite number of fish. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing that

moment of levity. i do rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, mr. camp of michigan. let me say, i think i take a second chair to no one in my respect for the gentleman from michigan. i respect his passion, his leadership in the ways and means committee, and his passion for the ecosystem known as the great lakes. i know he's sincere and it's real and this problem is real. . anyone who has taking more than a passing glance recognizes that this is a serious but manageable threat to the great lakes region. it is one that deserves the continued attention of this congress and this administration and the states within the great lakes region. but, that being said, i rise in opposition to the camp amendment for the following reasons.

principally because i believe that this amendment would have a devastating affect on hoosier jobs and the port it's of -- ports of indiana. the camp amendment would prohibit the army corps of eppingneers from operating the navigation locks -- engineers from operating the navigation lox in the city of chicago. that's the only with access to the mississippi basin. the separation from the great lakes from the mississippi river will cost thousands of jobs, cause great harm to many hoosiers who manufacture and grow our products. according to staud abouty by the ports of indiana, commerce is responsible for $1.9 billion in economic activity and nearly 18,000 jobs in my home state. in addition to the economic daniel, this action will inflict -- damage this action will inflict, i will submit that there's no evidence that closing the locks will definitely keep the asian carp out of the great lakes. the u.s. fish and wildlife found a year ago that there is no, quote, combination of lock operation scenarios that experts

believe would lower the risk of asian carp establishing self-sustaining populations in lake michigan, closed quote. in fact, the asian carp working group, according to those, there are dozens of alternative methods fully responsible splord and indiana is fully -- explored and indiana is fully participating in the effort. electronic barriers have shown promise, we need to continue energetically to work in that area. the gentlelady from illinois also outlined different areas. let me say, while i urge my colleagues to oppose the camp amendment, allow me to use this moment to say that we will continue to lock arms with the gentleman from michigan, with our neighbors in michigan, our neighbors in illinois, to deal with what is a very, very real threat to the ecosystem, to commerce in the area, to the enjoyment of the waterways in the area and -- >> would the gentleman yield?

pence opinions i yield. >> i thank the gentleman's words and i appreciate the argument he's making. but the concern is on the economic argument is that the damage to the great lakes, if this problem is not addressed, is irreversible and cannot be calculated. mr. camp: i can cite the statistics on the jobs and economic impact but the ecosystem, the damage to that cannot be remedied. and the concern i have is, this has really been a problem since 2006 when we worked to get the electronic barrier in which has not worked. and here now we are in 2011 saying, let's wait another five years for the army corps to complete their study and the problem is more eminent than that and i cannot seem to get the administration to move on the immediacy of the threat to the system. so i will yield back and i just want to thank the gentleman for the time. mr. pence: i was pleased to yield to the gentleman. let me just say that the demonstration projects of the electronic fence began slightly

before 2006, the fence and the studies are ongoing. let me say on behalf of other hoosiers from the delegation, we're not patient to wait five years for action. we will continue to work with the gentleman from michigan, to work, mr. chairman, on behalf of immediate action, continue to call on this administration, the economic impacts are devastating, the impact on the ecosystem broadly would be equally devastating and so we join the gentleman from michigan in calling for urgent action by this congress and this administration. i just respectfully offer that both with regard to its economic impact and with regard to its questionable effectiveness, that dealing with this from the standpoint of the locks and this continuing resolution is not the best approach. so with that, let me yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to oppose the camp amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 576 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. herbue of california -- by mrs. herb auto of california -- eshoo of california. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. one of the things i admire the most about our country is our commitment and our love for

democracy. we were founded on the ideal that it is the people who choose their government, we believe in the principle of one person, one vote, not $10,000 or $100,000 a vote. we believe in the free exchange of ideas to be able to decide which candidates deserve our votes. but money and lots of money, heaps of money from undisclosed sources are having a corrosive influence on our political campaigns. money distorts the voice of a particular point of view, making that voice seem louder, making it seem more influential or making it seem more persuasive than it actually is. we don't know who is saying what to whom. is it big oil? is it polluters? is it the insurance industry?

is it to the tobacco industry? -- is it to the tobacco industry? all too often these distorted views come from distorted interests and they try to undermine the public interest through campaign expenditures. these corporate interests, mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the gentlelady may continue. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. all too often these distorted views come from corporate interests that try to undermine the public interests through campaign expenditures. these corporate interests can buy elections by throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into a race for a particular candidate with attack ads against another. last year, sadly, the supreme court overturned landmark law and other centuries old

precedents aimed at limiting the influence of corporations in our elections. now, today we have stealth organizations formed for the so soul purpose of running attack -- sole purpose of run attack adds and the -- ads and the american people don't have a include who's footing the bills. the american people have a right to know who's trying to influence them and if corporations want to try to persuade vote% their point of view, they should stand behind their words. let voters judge the facts for themselves. voters are smart. let them make up their own minds on election day. as long as they have full and accurate information about those -- about the interests that are at stake. so my amendment is a commonsense solution to a difficult political problem. it requires that any company that does business with the federal government disclose their political contributions,

period. it's simple, it's clear, it's fair and it's called disclosure. this amendment says if you're a federal vendor receiving taxpayer dollars, you're required to disclose how much you spend to influence the political system. why? because with public funds come public responsibilities. my amendment honors the first amendment and it places no limitation on political speech. it simply requires transparency. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. pelosi: i rise to ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. pelosi: mr. chairman, i rise today to support the amendment presented by congresswoman eshoo on behalf of the public

interest, the peoples' interest. free elections in a healthy, transparent and open, public discourse. more than one year ago the supreme court opened the flood gates to unlimited corporate spending, secret unlimited corporate spending and influence over our campaigns and our public policy debates. in doing so in the citizens united decision dealt a harsh blow to fundamental principle of our democracy, that voters determined the outcome of the elections, not money to special interests. in response, with bipartisan support in this house of representatives, the house passed the disclose act, to require corporations to stand by their ads, the same way candidates do, and to keep foreign-owned entities from playing any role in our elections. the measure included a provision to keep government contractors and tarp recipients,

beneficiaries of taxpayer support, out of our elections. preventing them from using taxpayer dollars for their own agendas. senate republicans in the senate -- in the senate, the republicans blocked the disclose -- disclose act, yet the value it represented, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, must remain a call to action for both parties in both houses. many of the new members who are here campaigned on the principle that special interests play too big a role in our democracy. many of them -- >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. members, please take your conversations from the floor. ms. pelosi: the american people have constantly called upon congress to ask in the people's -- act in the people's interest, not the special interest. today we have another

opportunity thanks to congresswoman eshoo to answer the public's call to action for transparency, for openness, for true democratic elections. thanks to congresswoman eshoo we are highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy through an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to federal contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. no dollars in this act can be used to engage in and enter into a contract with any corporation or company which refuses to disclose its political expenditures. they could be using taxpayer dollars to weigh in in a secret, unlimited way in campaigns.

>> mr. speaker, the house is still not in order. our former speaker is speaking from the well and deserves -- ms. pelosi: it's not a message that some of our members want to hear. the chair: will the gentlelady suspend, please? the committee will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. ms. pelosi: i know that this is a message -- the chair: the gentlelady may continue. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. chairman. i know that some of you may not want to receive this message, but it is a message that the american people have delivered to us over and over again. that they do not want special interests with their secret, unlimited expenditures dominating our elections and therefore dominating public policy in this congress. so i'm grateful to congresswoman eshoo for highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy, again, through an amendment to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are not directed to federal contractors

who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. with this measure we could take one step forward in the fight to restore fairness to our political process and preserve the integrity of our elections. by disclosing the unlimited secret, endless flow of corporate dollars into campaigns. this republican majority, many of you voted for the disclose act as presented by mr. van hollen in the last session, i hope that you will choose again between putting the corporate interests or choosing the public interest. it should not be a hard choice, but we will find out soon enough where you stand. i urge all of my colleagues to join congresswoman eshoo in continuing to fight for meaningful reform and to advance the cause of accountability in our campaigns. we owe it to the american people

we owe it to our founders who invested so heavily in this democracy and we owe it to the future with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment by my distinguished colleague from california. you know, this isn't that complicated. it all gets down to the lesson that we all learned in grammar school. honesty is the best policy. . honesty is the best policy. there is not a member of this chamber, mr. chairman, who doesn't believe in the first amendment. i believe in the first amendment. i believe that in a democracy you can say almost anything you want about almost anybody. you have the right to say what you want. people have the right to know who is funding your message. when people -- mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will please come to order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. israel: thank you, mr. chairman. when people turn on their television sets and see a political commercial making outlandish claims, they deserve to know whether that commercial is being funded by a foreign-owned corporation. they deserve to know whether that commercial is being supported by a special interest group. they deserve to know when they are watching the commercial about how evil a candidate is whether it is being funded by a special interest that is trying to defeat that particular candidate because that particular candidate supports the environmental protection agency, supports clean air, supports clean water, and whether a special interest is trying to defeat that candidate because they want to dismantle the e.p.a. they have the right to know whether one of those -- when one of those commercials permeate

our airwaves, when those commercials are being funded by a special interest, for example, that wants to dismantle federal inspections of meat. because those federal meat inspections are impinging on the bottom line of that particular special interest. so this is simply about the right to know. this is simply about upholding our right to say what we want, when we want, about who we want, but making sure that the american people, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, understand who is behind that message. this says that the american people and the american taxpayer shouldn't be such -- unwittingly subsidizing dirty campaigns and secret donations. and that is why this amendment is so important. because the american people and taxpayers have the right to know and because honesty is the best policy. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? >> i continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the point of order is reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, the issue raised by this amendment is to whom does this congress belong? in whose interest are the members of congress working? mr. chairman, every one of our constituents will draw a conclusion about that question based upon how we vote, what we do, and what we say. and every one of us will face the consequences of that conclusion in the next election. one of the facts that i think every voter has a right to know is who is funding and supporting the campaigns of any one of us who seeks the honor of serving here? whether you belong to the most progressive group on the

democratic side, the most libertarian group on the conservative side, whether you are a member of the tea party, a member of the union or chamber of commerce, i think every voter deserves and believes that they deserve the right to know who is funding the campaigns that bring people here. this is a basic matter of transparency and full disclosure. frankly, mr. chairman, i think if we are honest among ourselves , we know how much the american people despise the political ads that vandalize their television screens every fall. a lot of people i know turn the television off or turn the sound down because they are so exhausted of hearing ridiculous personal dirty attacks by one side against the other. i would hope that someday the level of civility could rise where we'll stop that, but i think until we get to that day, people at the very least have the right to know who is paying

for it. from where is this money coming? ms. eshoo's amendment is very simple, very plain, and should be supported by people of all ideological stripes. it says the public has the right to know where the moppy is coming from. if you think a special interest group that promotes traditional energy supplies, oil and gas, is a good thing, then you'll be happy they are paying for commercials. and if you think that someone who is running on a platform promoting the woman's right to choose, then you'll be happy knowing some of their money may have come from people who sympathize with that point of view. irrespective where you come out on substance, shouldn't we all come out to a place that says the public has the right to know who is funding these campaigns? so to whom does this congress belong? well, if we look at the legislation before us today, it certainly looks like it doesn't belong to on could he logical

nurses because money for cancer research is being cut in this bill. it certainly doesn't look like it belongs to police officers walking the beats of america's towns, because upwards of 15,000 police officers will be laid off. as a result of this bill. certainly doesn't belong to america's schoolteachers and guidance counselors, because under this bill upwards of 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches will lose their job under this bill. 7,000 special education teachers under one version of this bill would lose their jobs. so if this congress doesn't belong, to nurses, police officers, teachers, to whom does it belong? one of the answers to that question would certainly come from answering the question, who paid the bills to get the members here? who wrote the checks and who made the contributions? i hope that our friends would

join us in supporting this amendment. i think it's clear and simple. but if they don't, maybe one of the reasons they don't want to join us in supporting this amendment or even hearing this amendment is they don't want the public to know who wrote the checks, who paid the bills, and who paid the freight. everyone should have the right to know who funded the campaigns that brought people here. it's as simple as full disclosure. it makes great sense. i urge a yes vote on his eshoo's amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike to strike the last word. mr. lungren: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the evenhanded approach that was utilized by the u.s. supreme court in their decision of citizens united. in that case the supreme court decided that the fifth amendment protection that is you have for

free speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say it not with a single voice but you join with others. and every response we heard to it from the other side has said, well, we don't like what the court did so what we are going to do is put certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same requirements on those who are unions representing those who are employees of the federal government. and there of course is as much a conflict of interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have contracts with the federal government. so once again they are trying to talk about how this action by the supreme court was unfair, somehow requires that there is an unfairness involved. that our elections were taken over by corporations. every study last shown that

there were far more expressions of political thought in paid advertising from those on the left than those on the right in the last election. we don't hear about that. and so if they would bring forward something that would have equal treatment, maybe then we could take a look at it. but the fact of the matter is we have seen effort after effort after effort -- we can recall last year when they brought it to the floor, one of the things they wanted to do is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and unions, but they were engaged in an auctioning off of first amendment rights according to whether you were a favorite or disfavored group. we saw organizations that were given specific exemptions. national rifle association was one of them. and there are those on the left. if you had enough political sway , you got exempted from the disclosure requirements. and that really is the definition of capital cronyism.

where the government decides who is favored and who is disfavored. and the essence of the decision by the supreme court was the acknowledgement that the first amendment has its most essential protection in speech which is political speech. if that be the case, we should tread very lightly where we require disparate treatment between different groups. those favored and those which are disfavored. if there is one thing the first amendment stands for, it is that we treat everybody the same. and this again is in keeping with what we saw last year, some people are more favored than the others, and when you are talking about first amendment rights and expressions of political thought, we should be very wary of it. by the way, nothing with the supreme court decision changed the prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations.

that has been, that continues to be, and will be a felony. if people on the other side have evidence of that happening, they ought to give that information to the justice department and have people prosecuted. let's at least talk about what the facts are and let's remember the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we have heard a lot about the supreme court decision, citizens united. and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision, but the fact of the matter is that's the law of the land. this amendment does not try to overturn that decision. this amendment is perfectly consistent with that decision. it simply says that when you are spending the money, expending the money, you have to disclose to voters that you're trying to

influence their vote. it's the right to know. now, because we are dealing with an appropriations bill, a government spending bill, we can't address all of the entities out there in the country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections. but what we can do -- not at this moment. i got my five minutes. i'm going to use them. i thank you. what we are saying in this bill is that if we are really trying to save the taxpayers some money, which we should all be trying to do, we should try to curb the influence of the special interests who spend a lot of money hiring lobbyists to influence us and spend money in campaigns trying to influence the outcome of elections. now, just in the last couple days, we have had a lot of votes on some issues that could affect federal government contractors in a very big way.

just yesterday we had a vote on something dealing with the big military contract. so here's my question, that contractor, contractor that got taxpayer money or the one that didn't, could say, look, i want to reward the folks that supported me. i'm going to run a bunch of cheesy ads in their campaign supporting them, say thank you. i want to get you re-elected. or they may say to the folks who voted against that federal government contract, hey, i want to make sure that person doesn't come back here because they may vote against my contract again. they may want to save the taxpayer some money. but we are going to spend some of our money, federal contractor, contractor getting timp dollars, we are going to spend some of our money to try to unelect that person who voted against our contract. this amendment is simple and it would have a direct impact on all the conversations we are

having. if you're a federal government contractor, if you are getting taxpayer money, and you decide to run political advertisement in people's campaign to try and reward those who supported you or punish those that didn't, you at least have to disclose that information to the voters. you at least have to say who you are and how much you're going to be spending. and it seems to me if we are genuinely interested in saving taxpayer dollars, which we all should be, we should give the taxpayer whose dollars are going to those contractors the right to know. whether those contractors are turning around and spending money in these elections. so if we are ever going to really work to try and curb those interests, those special interest interests that work so hard to try and get special benefits out of the federal

government, we should at the very least say come clean with the taxpayers, simply disclose this is not an infringement in any way on free speech. they can still run an ad in anyone's district, and they did say -- can say whatever they want to the voters, no restrictions whatsoever. all we are saying is when you do that, let the taxpayers know. after all the taxpayers have helped provide the funds for your contract. at the very least you should tell the taxpayer, the voter, who you are that's spending money to try and influence the outcome of an election. . you

ted de-side to get voed in the political process, as is your right. just tell the taxpayer who you are, what you're spending to try to influence their vote. and i hope that we will adopt this amendment. i thank the gentleman from california -- the gentlelady from california, ms. eshoo for offering it. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman. the chair: does the gentleman continue to reserve the point

of order? mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at the core of the supreme court decision was a protection of the first amendment political right of free speech. and that it would not be lost because you joined with others. as a corollary of that, the court and the -- in the majority opinion written by justice kennedy talked about the fact that one of the real fears of the founding fathers was the government acting in disparate ways. that is treating different groups differently for political reasons. so i just say, in the scenario by the gentleman from maryland, one would force an obligation of disclosure on one group and not another. so the defense contractors he said would, if he funded a statement on television, but the union members who worked

for the defense contractor would not or those who are federal employees represented by unions would not, but i guess what we're saying here is, we know the corporations influence elections but it is absurd to assume that unions do. and if you believe that, then support this amendment. >> i yield back but continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for reserve his poifert so we can speak to this amendment offered by ms. eshoo. i believe this is about transparency, i'm for widening the circle of transparency as we possibly can. this is about trying to gain transparency for the american people. it's a remarkable process how

we all get here. we engage in some form of politics that is straight out of the first congress of the united states. it's out of the first people who ran for office here. we go to our neabs and to our friends and go to town councils and we talk to people and ask them to support it. we go into our organizations and ask them to support it. we tell them what we think, what we like and don't like, maybe what we like about them and don't like about them. it's the process of interchange. the transparency of ideas. you're held accountable for those ideas. and you raise money because you want to change your methods further you go to organizations that support you and organizations you support, right now that's essentially all disclosed. what we've seen now in the last few years, especially after the supreme court decision, is there's two campaigns being run you run one, the best you can, under the rules we have, campaign contributions are all

reported. then an independent group comes in and they run a campaign for you or against you in your district. your constituents may know what hit them. it may only be about an issue that's linked to you. it has nothing to do with disclosure. that's their right around the supreme court's decision. but the question really should be, should those expenditures be disclosed? because very often, we all know one of the unpleasant things that happens to you unless you find your whole campaign out of your own pocket, you'll cast a vote and the newspaper will immediately go and say congress voteed -- congressman so and so got a contribution on this side or this person on this side of the argument and a contribution from this person on the other side of the argument, that happens all the time. that's disclosure. that's the price you pay. except for these expenditures that may come from the very same side of that argument, are completely invisible to the press, to your neighbors, to

your constituents, and that should not be allowed. the disclosure should be full and complete. on people who spend money on behalf of these campaigns. you can't have a situation where people move through the night, move with secret money, undisclosed money and seek to influence the outcome of the elections in this country. this is -- this isn't where secret societies move through and create a party for the purposes of taking money from this party over here. this isn't russia where they create parties to defer one another and people never see where the expenditures are coming from or they're speculated about. in this country, a long, hard struggle, one campaign has full disclosure. the working person, or corporate chief. whatever source your money is is disclosed. now we have a shadow campaign. and the shadow campaign

threatens to dwarf what's taking place in the other campaign. how many members on both sides of this aisle know that they have a campaign? we know about the independent expenditures, about the undisclosed money that came into the campaign. think how that turns the stomach and the heart and the mind of our constituents. when they think about this was beginning on, an election where they in good faith, maybe stood in line to vote and made sure they got their absentee vote, might have asked the rest of their family members to vote. all of that was taken away by a tsunami, $6 million, $9 million, $12 million that showed up on the doorstep of your district, all undisclosed, now gathering the forces once again to get ready for the next cycle. people bragging about how much money they'll have. people bragging about their voovement, their success ratios. all of that to intimidate members of congress, to make people think about the vet.

-- about the vote. they'll never be held accountable for those action. that's what transparency is truly about. transparency is as much for us as it is for our constituents. and it's important to our constituents because they do make judgments about us. they do make judgments about issues. they have expectations of us. they have hopes of us. and it's only that information and that transparency that will let them act in a rational way on behalf of their vote to protect their vote, the vote they just cast, and the vote they anticipate casting into the future. we have an amendment here to rip away the $3 check off, a modest effort by constituents to say, i want to make sure the elections are clean and transparent. now we see that the undisclosed far exceeds anything they can possibly do. i thank the gentleman again for reserving the point of order and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is indeed interesting to listen to the arguments that are coming on this particular amendment. mr. pearce: myself being on the receiving end for the third psych until a row about $1.5 million in ads run against me by a group that is protected, their secrecy is protected under the disclose act passed under the last congress. so the people here proclaiming transparency is the ultimate aim of this legislation, themselves protected through legislation in the last congress, certain organizations if you follow within their parameters which these groups do. so i do find it amazing that we're here, sitting, talking about transparency on the part of the people who will enter into discussions of campaigns. but not all of them. some of those over there have their entire lists prohibited from disclosure and so i just, i would yield back the balance my time.

i find it refreshing to hear the comments about transparency and the american system coming from the floor of the house that decided they did not want that transparency for certain groups and i suspect those certain groups are still allowed to be fully clothed in secrecy even under the guise of this particular amendment and i would yield back and thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve his point of order? >> i do, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: i rise in support of this modest amendment by congresswoman eshoo. in the words of young people,s that in-brainer. this should be an easy call for members on both sides of the aisle, people who believe in fairness and democracy and transparency. it should be an easy call for us to say, you know what, we know that there may be federal contractors out there getting billions of dollars in benefits

from federal contracts but they should disclose the money that they're spending on campaigns. the american people expect that. i wasn't a supporter of the decision in citizens united vs. the federal elections commission. but that's not what this is about, mr. speaker. this is not about a protected first amendment right. i read the decision in citizens united and what i took away from that, mr. speaker, is that in fact the one area that the congress does have some authority in is to regulate the disclosure of expenditures in campaigns. the court was very explicit about that. i know that there have been, mr. speaker, a number of statements here on the floor that suggest otherwise, that suggest that this very fine and modest amendment would in fact impede on constitutional rights but that's not what the court said at all. what the court said is that it's important and congress has the authority to regulate the disclosure of corporate

expenditures on campaigns and this amendment does exactly that. it says, you know what, to play by the rules, these are the rules that we set. if you spend money on campaigns, we have a right to -- the public has a right, an interest in knowing what your interest is. so i'm a strong supporter of this amendment. it's simple. who funds campaigns? what's your special interest, mr. speaker? at a minimum government contractors really stand to gain billions of dollars should disclose their interest in our campaign. this is a simple question of democracy. members can declare here today that either they're on the side of the public interest and support this amendment, or they're on the side of secrecy and collusion and oppose the amendment. it's imperative that we really prevent secret donations in our elections. we've eliminated the presidential campaign fund. so much more unfettered spending will take place in

presidential campaigns. we can't aed for to continue to obstruct common sense reforms that diminish the voices of the american people. i'm not alone. across this country, fully 80% of the american public actually believe that the citizens united decision was decided wrongly. but that's not why we're here today. we will take that up at another time. we're here today, mr. speaker, to declare once and for all that there will be some of us, and i hope a majority of us, that will stand in support of the eshoo amendment on the side of fairness, on the side of democracy, on the side of transparency, on the side of the american people and we will declare here today with our vote that we stand for the public interest and some who so shamefully declared that they stand for special interests. with that, i'm going to yield the balance of my time and say i urge us to stand on the side of the public interest in support of the eshoo amendment.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve his point of order? >> i continue to reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states in pertinent part and i quote, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, end quote, the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any member wish to be heard on a point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to find on the rule. a determination not required by existing law. the amendment therefore

constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. it's amendment number 195. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 195, printed in the congressional record, offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the staff of this house of representatives we adjourned this morning at 3:48 a.m. with a staff that

diligently stayed and worked these amendments. the staff outside that provide security. it is an amazing effort by the people who serve this country as the staff members of the u.s. house of representatives. i want to take this opportunity to thank them for their outstanding service. mr. chairman, i'm here to propose an amendment and tell a story about a law. it is ironic that these two proposals came up simultaneously . in 1980 a lou was passed called the equal access to justice act. it allows americans who are being challenged by the federal government to recover their legal fees if they successfully sue the federal government when the federal government has wronged them. it is a very fair law. the problem is, in 1995 the

federal government quit keeping records on who is receiving payouts and how much under the equal access to justice act. consequently this law has been hydrogened -- hijacked by certain groups who use it to sue and recover judgments. for example, there are 14 environmental groups that have recovered $37 million by filing 1,200 lawsuits for which they have recovered judgments and even legal fees under settlements with the federal government thereby fueling the fire of suing the federal government over sometimes procedural issues. there's a group at virginia tech university who through the foia

law, the freedom of information act, has uncovered how many abuses there are of this law and how many unintended consequences there are to the use of this law by certain groups. we need to have a six-month moratorium on expenditures and payouts so we can get information about who is receiving this money, what the lawyers are being paid per hour, and who is it going to. how many environmental groups are actually paying for their organization by routinely suing the federal government to stop certain activities on federal land? this is taxpayer money that's being used for this purpose. and in light of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle 's enthusiasm for sunshine, for

full disclosure, for knowing where taxpayer dollars are going, i strongly encourage you to support my amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? -- virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, equal access to our nation's courts for all americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice. providing attorneys fees to successful plaintiffs ensures that the government is held accountable when it overreaches its power. these fees are only available merits of a lawsuit. and only then after careful consideration by the presiding

judge as to how deserving each plaintiff is. attorneys fees available to individual citizens, local communities, small businesses, tribal entities, nonprofits all regardless of where they stand on any particular issue. providing attorneys fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who don't have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our government, by our court system. otherswise they wouldn't have the means. we already suffer under a system where too often big money, as we just had that discussion, crowds average people out of our political system. squeezing them out of this political process here on

capitol hill. now you want a system where big money squeezes average people out of the courthouse as well, out of our justice system. awarding attorneys fees makes it possible for environmental groups. i acknowledge that. to bring court actions to protect our environment. i happen to think that's a good thing. but it also allows small business owners, farmers, ranchers, timber workers to ensure that their rights are protected as well when they believe that the federal government is in the wrong. it works both ways. this republican zeal to farget -- target every program that protects natural resources is just difficult to comprehend. you have proposed an amendment that would slam the courthouse doors, closed for any plaintiff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

instead of finding practical solutions that protect the environment and create jobs, this amendment would do nothing more than financially punish citizens who want and need to have their voices heard. that's why this amendment should be defeated. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady -- the gentleman from idaho, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman and members of the committee, i rise in agreement with this amendment. it's not the case in reality. i think that's the reason that this law was passed. so that those people, the powerless, less wealthy

individuals that the gentleman referred to, would have access to the courts. the last thing we want to do is deny citizens their right toe have a say in how in this case our public lands are managed. but it has become frankly a cottage industry. mr. simpson: suing the federal government which is suing the people and then asking the people to pay for your legal fees to do so. the equal access to justice allow those suing the federal government to be reimbursed for their legal costs even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts. the implication that the gentleman just gave is you have to win. they can be reimbursed even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts. the law's been abused by several interest groups who have turned this into, as i said, a cottage industry and now sue the

government on a regular basis. they fund their organization through this. that's a problem. if somehow we could get it back to what the gentleman said it was, that would be one thing. so far we haven't been able to do that. and in fact we have language in our last appropriation bill that didn't make it to the floor, along with the other appropriation bills, that would have at least said, why don't we find out who is getting this money? if i'm a farmer out there and i get payments under the farm program, every citizen in this country has the right and ability to look it up and see who is getting those farm payments. you know what? that doesn't happen with who is getting these fees. who is being reimbursed by the federal government. they are supposed to keep track of that but they don't do that. and in fact when we asked the secretary does this come out of your budget or does it come out

of the justice fund, who pays for this, nobody really knew. if it doesn't come out of their own budget, what's their incentive to do things the right way? quite frankly, many of these lawsuits prevent the management of federal lands for the benefit of the people. for example, holding important projects and wildfire prevention projects. this as i said has become a cottage industry and needs to be reformed. this would prevent these fees from being paid during the term of this c.r., the next seven months or however long it takes. i would be happy to yield. mr. moran: i thank my very good friend from idaho. is it not the case that you only get fees on that part of the suit that you brought where you actually win? that you do have to prevail in order to get something in order to get reimbursed and it's only on where you prevail that you

get any fee reimbursement. mr. simpson: that's accurate. you don't have to prefail in the overall case. can you actually lose the case for what you are trying to do. to me it is the problem that good intentions gone awry. i are tell you that there are groups all across this country who have seen this as a way to fund their organizations and we need to put a halt to it. because what we are doing is asking the people of this country to fund people to sue them. i don't know who else does that. but on the other hand i agree with the gentleman that we want those people that don't have the ability or the resources to have a say in how public lands are managed to have a say in that. but it has gone awry and we need to put an end to it and we need to reform the process. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: thank you, this amendment is overbroad to use a euphemistic term to describe what its impact will be upon those who are the least powerful and most aggrieved in terms of the impact which the federal government, the federal government has upon their lives as individual citizens. let me give you an idea of how broad the impact of this amendment is. if this had been in place, would the citizens who had been unwittingly turned into nuclear guinea pigs in the 1940's and 1950's during federal government sponsored radiation experiments

using thousands of american citizens without their permission have been able to bring their lawsuits decades later in order to reclaim some small compensation for their family? would they have been able to bring their suits against the federal government? who do you want to empower? the people who are the guinea pigs or the federal government? would a widow who sued the social security administration for refusing to provide the survivors benefits that she was still due, would she be able to sue? or the legal fee is so great that the widow just has to live without the benefits? would those who live downwind from a nuclear test and suffered cancer or other health effects, would they be able to sue? they have only found out years later what the impact is on them. how can they possibly afford the legal fees to take on the federal government? would the atomic veteran

deployed at the test site during the atmospheric nuclear testing of the 1950's ever have been able to afford to bring their case to court? would those people all across nevada and arizona and utah, those states out west where these four victims only found out later, how could they have ever afforded to have brought a lawsuit if they are not going to know their legal fees will be covered when they win? would government whistle blowers be able to bring a case in response to retaliation by their superiors? how can they sue the government and this lone individual against the federal government? we should be empowering these individuals against the federal government when it acts in an arbitrary, capricious way that ruins people's lives. would citizens harmed by a contamination at a superfund site at a military base in their neighborhood be able to sue the federal government because of the harm that has now gone into

their neighborhood? or should we just say sorry, you're out of luck, the federal government did it to you, they did it to you in your neighborhood, you don't have the capacity because you're just some poor citizen living accidentally nearby a military base. what would the black farmers who were discriminated against for decades by the agriculture department have been able to do in terms of bringing a lawsuit? they couldn't have done it. . those poor black farmers took a yen ration. who funds that? how do they take on the federal government which had a policy of discrimination for 00 years against black farmers? how would they do it? you're defunding all those lawsuits with this one amendment. what would have been the impact on native americans who trusted the government to protect their interest in natural resources and instead were ripped off? how do those native americans bring their case? all of these things are now

basically undermined by the amendment we are now considering. that is impact of -- that is being visited upon all of these victims and all future victims of actions by the federal government of the united states of america. this is where you get to show what your attitude is toward the federal government when they are acting in a way which does direct harm to the health, the well being, the safety of ordinary americans in our country. so this -- this is an amendment, i will read the amendment. none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the payment of fees and other expenses under section 504 of title 5 of the u.s. code. so this covers every suit that could be brought by any citizen against any federal agency of the united states government.

i don't know how you can side with the federal government against ordinary citizens and their right to sue, especially those who have been harmed the most seriously. i urge a very strong no by every member of congress who really does believe that the federal government has to be put in its place when they harm ordinary citizens. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. chairman and members of the house, i think mr. markey has it right. lawsuits are brought every day that infuriate us one way or another depending on where you stand and what you know about that issue but the idea that we would take this right away from the american people to go up against the government when the government every day makes a series of decisions, not all of them are perfect. many of them are wrongheaded.

many of them have repercussions they hadn't thought through when they made these decisions. those are challenges that go on every day, whether it's in osha or the e.p.a. or the department of labor or the department of the interior. many digs made upstream have ramifications downstream. let's not pretend that every forest service sale is perfectly configured and thought about the externality, the impact on deprazers, the impact on farmers downstream, the impact on stream the sedimentation, the impact on fisheries. we live with that in california all the time. salmon don't have a lawyer. but the harm to the fishery, to the small fishermen to boat owners, those who go out and brave their life in the pacific ocean, when the federal government makes decisions about water flows and the federal government makes decisions about timber sales and about construction of a dam, they have a right to be

heard. but this is -- but this isn't true if they're taxpayers for justice who argue about whether or not the royalties are fair and returned to the taxpayers, whether or not the flovet issued the permits in the right way. do you think it's a right that somebody else has and you don't like it you think you may want to exercise it. this is a magnificent tool. any of problems with the gentleman from idaho talked about in terms of disclosure and accounting and transparency. that should all be there. i don't know why the department stopped listing this but they should have never done it. i would assume in other agencies they should disclose what the payouts are, because it's a measure of the management to some extent. it's also a measure of the management. it's like a business. if you keep paying out a lot, the insurance company says maybe we ought to change the operations, change the way you're thinking here. something's wrong when you have

these payouts. you could argue this is one of the met ribs of performance of a governmental agency. they keep losing the lawsuits you might want to think, you've got to have somebody else running the show. i would hope we would reject this amendment and understand it's a much broader dissipation of citizens' rights to confront the government when the government may very well be wrong and again, the payout comes only when you have to prevail on those measures and on those measures where the court found that the government was wrong, you're entitled to recover your costs and expenditures so i don't think this is very fair. it's worked for many, many years and has protected a lot of citizens in this country against arbitrary and capricious actions by the federal government. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i move to strike many of the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, sir. mr. bishop: we have heard a lot about this fund and the difficulties and some exaggeration to where it goes and what it does. the problem is several fold, one of which is since 1994, there's been no clearing-house of information. we do not know what has been funned, what has been used, we do not know what has been abused. repeated requests to try and find that information have fallen on deaf ears. in this c.r., which is for a limited time this provision would once again, as i heard other people saying yesterday, raise attention to this issue and give someone a reason to actually give that information. it is estimated in the last 15 years there have been around 1,100 lawsuits and that doesn't even include administratively brought actions that are before the land boards and the forest service. all of those are part of the situation.

i heard some great speeches about how this would hurt poor people and he's right, can except you're not looking at the poor people hurt with the current situation. under the way that this is administered correctly, any nonprofit, regardless of the amount of money they have, is eligible for these funds but a for-profit individual, these poor farmers you are talking about, if they have over $7 million in net worth, which means a farmer a rancher, who has land -- who is land rich and cash poor, has several options in these. they can just sit down and hope something happens for them or they can put money out of their own pocket to try to force their way into this particular sitch -- situation. let me sell how this has been abused. one case that took place in federal court in idaho in which there was a settlement, no one was right no one was wrong, they came to an agreement. even though that settlement, which represented no admission of fault on maff of the government or what it did, the

environmental special interest lawyers were given $43,000 in attorney fees under this proposal. under this program. and we don't know if that's just the top or the tip of the iceberg or how far it particularly goes. this is simply an element that we have an unfair balance of who is available to get these funds, we have an unfair balance of what happens if someone prevails and we have the unfair balance that certain groups get paid with taxpayer money, even though they didn't win the case. even though the government did nothing wrong. this system is broken. and this is a good amendment to say, all right, for the rest of the termination of the c.r., we're not going to spend any more funds in a system that doesn't work and we're going to demand transparency to make some changes. this halts spending only for a short period of time until we fine out who was given what and what was spent from whom and to whom an that's the point of the amendment.

i urge everyone to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: i want to say i was here when it was created. i was a congressional staffer. talk about the law of unintended consequences. i might point out that people on the other side of the aisle fought us on creation of the equal access to justice law. it was never intended to be used for the purposes for which it is being used. i should apoll jizz to the people of america for being a supporter of equal access to justice. as a staffer, i was his small business aide, he was a congressman from montana, i helped talk him into it. it made sense. it was supposed to give an opportunity for small business to be able to counter the lawsuits that were going to occur against them by the government coming in often times with frivolous regulation.

the other side has figured how to turn it into a jobs bill for trial lawyers. they very effectively in the endangered species act and some of the other environmental acts figured out how to use it to stop development within the united states. so unfortunately, in about the early 1990's, we as small business advocates were the ones that helped push this through. the only group at that time that was exempt was the i.r.s. we wanted everybody to be under this law, giving the small businesses opportunity to protect themselves. it has been twisted, they've done everything they possibly can to turn an industry into suing on behalf of people and then making money off of it. it never was intended for this purpose. we need to get back to its original purpose. if you -- it would be fun to go back and find out how some of the people who talk about what a great law it is now, how they voted at the time.

if i remember correctly as a young staffer a lot of people who are for it now were against it when we voted for it in the early 1980's. i hope you support the congresswoman's amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? mrs. bachmann: i rise to strike the last word and yield my time to mr. markey. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. i rise to make this very simple point system of you all know what you're doing. the law that this amendment wants to prevent funding for was a ronald reagan law. this is a ronald -- a law ronald reagan signed and put on the books. so you understand. the reason he put it on the books was he sided with the little guy against the federal government. this is the way to make the federal government accountable. and recovery of attorney's feese and legal expenses is needed to ensure that the people can keep their own

government accountable when they, the smallest of the small, are having the federal government intrude itself into their lives and bringing tremendous honor to the health and well being of the family in any particular community in our country. as of 2009, by the way, social security and veterans cases make up the majority of equal access to justice awards. you're going to be disempowering, for the most part, social security and veterans cases that otherwise would not be able to be brought against the federal government. and i just think, you know, this is not well thought out. this is across the board blunderbuss attack upon the rights of citizens across the country who are going to sit there in their homes wondering what's going on in washington. if ever there was a tea party amendment that has to be made

to counter what you're doing, this is it. you guys are here representing the big government against the essence, the heart, the soul of the tea party movement, wondering how the federal government can get away with intruding themselves and all we're really providing here is minimal financial assistance if they win. if they lose, it's a frivolous case. if they lose, the your decided against them. this is only if they win. if they put up their life's savings to try to take on the federal government and they win because the federal government has compromised the rights of their families. so i just want to let you all know environmental cases amount to a very, very, very tiny fraction of all the cases we're talking about. we're talking about for the most part ordinary families. i understand why, you know, why some people might not want to give these people the right to sue but you're making a big mistake. it's the heart, it seems to me, of what the tea party was all

about. voting for this will be a difficult thing to explain. i thank the gentlelady from minnesota. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i call for a recorded vote on that. the chair: the gentleman calls for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman -- by the gentlelady from wyoming will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: which amendment. ms. lee: amendment number 222. the chair: the clerk will dez i ig nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 222 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. well, this is unbelievable but i rise today in support of my amendment. it really does hit the heart of the issue of fiscal responsibility, discussed with such passion on the floor over the past few days and for the life of me i can't figure out why a point of order would be called on this amendment. it's short and to the point. if enacted all it would do is freeze the department of defense programs at the fiscal 2010

level unless the financial statements of the department of defense for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready for audit within six months of enactment of this act. this amendment would exempt military personnel, reserve personnel and national guard personnel accounts as well as the defense health care program accounts for this potential funding freeze. let me take a moment and clarify what is expected of the department of defense in this amendment. my amendment would simply require a determination that the department's financial statements comply with generally accepted accounting principles, applicable laws, regulations and that they reflect reliable nernl controls. these are just basics if you're managing a budget. sadly the department of defense inspector general and the g.a.o. have documented time and time again the department's inability

to answer this basic question. where are our defense dollars going? i would like to summarize just a few highlights from a 2009 pentagon inspector general's report on the subject of d.o.d. audit activities and financial controls. the department of defense, and i quote, acknowledged that it does not meet accounting standards for the -- excuse me, for the financial reporting of public accounts payable because unless standard procedures for recording, reporting and reconciling the amounts of the financial accounting and reporting systems -- we're talking about ads 700 billion budget, no standard -- a $700 billion budget, no standard procedure for reporting and reconciling these amounts. the department of defense continues to enter material amounts of unsupported accounting entries. in other words, they are balancing the book with figures

not tied to specific programs or expenditures. the department of defense audit trails, again, i quote, for estimated environmental liabilities are insufficient. and there is uncertainty regarding the accounting estimates used to calculate the reported environmental liability. and, lastly, again, i quote, despite efforts and limited progress toward auditable financial statements, d.o.d. still struggles with material control weaknesses that make the financial data unreliable. until these and any other weaknesses in this $700 billion budget are resolved, d.o.d. will not be able to meet its goal of an unqualified audit. i anticipate that some of my colleagues may make the argument that d.o.d. is making progress on this issue in response to congressional engagement. they might reference language in recent defense authorization bills requiring the d.o.d. to

develop and implement plans to achieve auditability by september, 2017. that's kind of hard to believe. we're talking about taxpayer dollars, we're talking about huge deficit, a recession. can't even audit the department of defense until 2017. doesn't make any sense. it's unacceptable that we are still developing plans, you hear me, developing plans for the department of defense. this is almost laughable. developing plans for the department of defense to have its fiscal house in order in at least six years from now or until six years from now, 2017. makes no sense. the problem is not newly discovered. further delay is really unacceptable. given the enormous and increasing proportion of federal dollars going toward a defense budget. even if we do freeze base defense department appropriations at fiscal year 2010 levels, if we wait until 2017, congress will watch more

than $3 trillion, you hear me again, $3 trillion, will be allowing this once again to go into a black hole in the pentagon with no oversight, no accountability and no consequences. in the 1990's congress was promised these financial deficiencies would be sobbed by 1997. the timeline was delayed until 2007. that was in the early 2000's. is there any expectation that the 2017 timeline will not be delayed without congress demonstrating a willingness to hold the defense department accountable? comon, i think this should be a bipartisan -- come on, i think this should be a bipartisan vote. it should not be subject to a point of order. we should have some fiscal responsibility. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and

constitutes legislation in the appropriations bill, therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from california. mr. lee: on the point of order, when you talk about fiscal responsibility, with the detens department, taxpayer dollars, trillions and trillions of dollars that are inaudible, this should not be a point of order. these are our dollars, our constituents' dollars, they deserve a vote to see who wants to make sure that there's some fiscal responsibility at the department of defense. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of funds in the bill. as such the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the gentlelady offer an amendment? ms. wasserman schultz: i do. the chair: what's the number? ms. wasserman schultz: amendment number 211. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to ask for my colleagues' support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents, our children. this bipartisan amendment is a simple one. it says that child victims of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if deep cuts to the department of justice occur. this amendment censures off $70 million for child exploitation prevention and interdiction. it ensures that even in this

time of painful budget cuts that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us. over the last decade, child porn trafficking has exploded into a multibillion dollar industry. the majority of both demand and supply is based in the united states and sadly most often involves parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts. tragically the demand for images of young children being sexually exploited, raped, even tortured can only be supplied through the sexual abuse of more children. literally every image of child pornography is a crime scene photo. several years ago law enforcement informed congress that can could identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating these online but admitted it was investigating fewer than 2% of these known individuals due to a lack of resources that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed. the vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remain at large and their young victims beyond rescue. congress and the president

responded by passing and signing into law the protect our children act which provides desperately needed resources to the vital internet crimes against children task forces. these task forces are teams of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital fingerprints, rescue the children and hold perpetrators accountable. the task force rescues child victims in realtime. victims like elisa who was sexual assaulted at age 13 by a man who befriended her online and abducted her from her pittsburgh home. she was rescued by the f.b.i. and the virginia task force. now is not the time to pull the funding rug out from under these task forces. congress is already funding this effort and only -- at only half of the authorization. yet the law is making a difference. the department of justice recently released its national strategies to combat child exploitation. but it is only first getting up and running. now is not the time to impose draconian funding cuts on the department of justice that could thwart this progress.

i want to thank congressman shuler, congressman lamar smith, congressman dan lungren for support he me in this bipartisan effort -- for supporting me in this bipartisan effort. this will give enforcement the resources they need to protect the most vulnerable. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: we're spleesed -- pleased to accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman accepts the amendment. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. 165. choipt clerk will designate the amendment. drn the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 165, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. the u.s. seaman industry is among the most regulated in the world and has long served not only as a responsible steward of the environment, but as a provider of highways, family jobs and communities throughout this country. it competes against important agencymen which has the advantage of low wages and nonexistence environmental regulations. yet the e.p.a. has planned to drop a bomb of job-killing ineffective regulations on this industry which by the e.p.a.'s own admission could result in an increased global mercury pollution as production moves to those countries with no air quality standards. specifically in september of 2010, e.p.a. finalized the

national emissions standards for has order air pollutants, a rule based on questionable science. u.s. cement industry provides more than 15,000 highways jobs with an average compensation of $75,000 per year. and along with allied industries , accounts for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross domestic product. due to the recession the cement industry has already lost over 4,000 jobs. this bad rule threatens to close another 18 of the 19 cement plants nationwide and throw another 1,800 americans out of good-paying private sector jobs. mr. speaker, as bitters that would be in the middle of a horrible recession, if it were to guarantee and it would reduce mercury pollution, at least the

human cost might be justified. but when the cement production from these plants are shifted to china and india with no air quality standards, we could face an increased mercury pollution worldwide and in this country. today 75% of our annual mercury deposits are already coming to the united states from outside this country. and that's indicated by this map prepared by the electric power search institute. if you look at this map very briefly, here's the regulations chart. red is somewhere between 80% and 100% of the mercury. if you look west of the mississippi, in fact it actually crosses the mississippi, all this area is red, that means that the asian pollution, asian pollution pollutes the mercury in this part of the united states in a percentage between 80% and 100%.

now, as you move across into the midwest and the south it's only between 60% and 78%, provided by the winds, bringing pollutants from asian production. and of course florida is down here, it's in the red so it's between 80% and 100%. and it's only on the east coast when you get down into this range here, with 20% to a little over 55%, and the blue is below that which is just a few dots over here on the east coast. so right now our mercury problem is not coming from our problem, it's not our problem, it's from outside the united states right now. and we're going to implement rules and regulations dropped on this industry by the e.p.a. which is going to drive at least 18 of these plants and possibly the vast majority of these plants offshore. where are they going to go offshore? they're going to go to asia and

right now we have ways to measure this and protect ourselves on our plants already in place and most of the thicks that e.p.a. are asking for -- things that e.p.a. are asking for are in place but they change the rules in the middle of the game and therefore we're asking that we do the right thing and force the e.p.a. to sit back down at the table and reduce mercury pollution and saves u.s. jobs. this is important. this is a bad rule and it's going to be bad for our environment and the best thing we can do is say, time-out on this by not letting any funds -- by basically saying, no funds will be spent on the enforcement of this and we would hope that e.p.a. would go back to the table, sit down with the industry and come up with a real solution for what they're trying to do. this is the purpose of my amendment and this is what this is all about.

>> will the gentleman yield? mr. carter: i will. >> is this for one year or do you have a time frame? mr. carter: we don't have a time frame. mr. dicks: so it's a permanent law? mr. carter: there's also the hydrochloric acid and other things that haven't been discussed. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. moran: the amendment would -- to strike the last word. the amendment would increase rev -- put to a rule to increase revenues in sectors that design and manufacture control equipment by as much as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as much as 1,300 jobs. in effect, the amendment could be considered a job killer amendment. but what it does is to prohibit

e.p.a. from implementing, administering, or enforcing final rules to control air toxics from the cement industry. the standards for portland cement kilns have already been promulgated. the amendment would not relieve the industry of the need to meet these standards even though the agency would have no way to enforce -- no money to enforce the standards, citizens or states could bring lawsuits against those who didn't meet the standards. this will also prevent e.p.a. from providing technical assistance to sources of pollution to understand or comply with the rules or to assist the states in enforcing the rules. the compliance date is 2013. so the regulated industry sources are now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing to order large amounts of equipment in

order to be in compliance. lack of e.p.a. assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply under compliance -- on the compliance date. this in turn could result in numerous enforcement actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in significant costs that would have to be borne by the states and regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable. these funding limitations to stop e.p.a. rules really have unintended consequences. they don't stop the legal requirements to regulate polluters. they really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers that would litigate these issues out in the courtroom. it seems that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily costly amendment and

ill-advised and an ill-timed one. i would urge defeat of this amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. miller: last fall, the governing conference put forth the document for america which put forward ideas on how to deal with the level of up sustainable debt being put on our children, grandchildren and future generations. the american people agreed with us to carry out what we put forward. in that pledge we promised to cut $100 billion in the fiscal year 2011 budget and with the passage of this legislation, the underlying legislation, which i support, we will have kept that promise, mr. chairman.

unfortunately, president obama did not seem to get that message as he has threatened to veto this legislation. the president remains committed to an agenda that calls for ever-higher spending, higher taxes, trillion-dollar deficits, huge debts and a government that is out of control. the president presented his budget to the congress this past monday. and the president patted himself on the back by saying that his budget, mr. chairman, reduces the deficit over the next 10 years by about $1 trillion but he said little of the fact that according to his own math, more than $7 trillion would be added to our national debt. today, our national debt is in excess of $14 trillion and at the end of the president's 10-year budget window, it will be nearly $23 trillion. it's clear that the president's budget was not a governing document like the pledge to america was. it was a political document. in which he refused to take on the tough challenges that we

face in our nation. in the illinois state senate, president obama, then state senator obama, voted present. he protoed -- voted present 130 times. refusing, refusing to take a position on the various issues facing his state. in his irresponsible budget on monday, president obama once again voted present. mr. chairman, president obama needs to know that with the many challenges facing our nation, now is not the time to vote present. now is the time to provide leadership. you don't have to vote if the president's budget doesn't provide the serious leadership we need now. one of the president's strong -- read "the washington post" which said this about the president's budget, he said the president punted. having been given the chance to take the bold step to raise revenue and curb entitlement

spending, president obama in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal chose instead to duck, and to mask some of the ducking with the budgetary gimmick he is once derided. punting in football is the equivalent of voting present in politics. by once again voting present, the president refused the mantle of leadership at a time of fiscal crisis in our nation. mr. chairman, we in the republican party will take that mantle and continue to put forward an agenda for america that get gets our fiscal house in order and empowers the private sector to create new jobs. we listened to the american people and they concede today, today, our seriousness in dealing with the out of control spending we have. in our budget, we will show once again that we are serious about reducing these unsustainable deficits. we understand, mr. chairman, that out of control government spending, borrowing and debt limits the opportunity, it

limits the opportunities available to our children and to our grandchildren to help them achieve the american dream. we will continue to tackle these tough issues head on. if president obama believes that his political supporters simply will attack all of our efforts to return this nation to fiscal sanity, if he believes that by voting present, by taking a pass on the tough decisions, that somehow he'll gain political advantage, mr. chairman, i believe that the president has seriously underestimated the political will of the american people and seriously misread the message from the last election. the american people, mr. chairman, understand that the status quo is not sustainable. they understand that we cannot build our economy on top of a mountain of debt and the american people understand that it is simply unacceptable for the leader of our nation at this time in our history to be voting present and this week

the members of the house are making the difficult choices on this continuing resolution which we have been debating this week and the republican majority will be presenting our budget in the near future and we will not be voting present. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the member -- for what purpose does the member from pennsylvania, a member of the committee, rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of judge carter's amendment. it's absolutely necessary. let me give you a few reasons why. i'm co-chair of the cement caucus, along with congressman mike ross of arkansas. mr. dent: my district is one of the, if not the top cement producing district in america. this is a critical industry to our infrastructure and certainly to the people of our country.

nationally, the cement industry employs about 17,000 americans. we've lost more than 4,000 jobs in this industry since 2008. i am deeply concerned that e.p.a. has filled -- failed to properly address the economic impact of this rule. i'm concerned about this for a variety of reasons. it seems in many respect this is industry seems to be specifically under attack by the e.p.a. this rule is critically flawed. it cobbles together a range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any single cement plan to comply with all the standards simultaneously. nobody determined if anyone can comply with this rule. this means a lot to the people of my district. this rule is going to restrict our ability to remain competitive with foreign cement producers, foreign imports make up about 20% of total u.s.

cement sales. most foreign operators they base -- producers, operate without anything close to the level of environmental standards currently in place in america. while the e.p.a. is trying to limit cement production with this ill-advised, job-destroying regulation, the obama administration stimulus is providing financing to build a cement importation terminal in new york city. stimulus dollars are being used to finance a cement importation terminal in new york city. the cement that's produced in my region supplies the new york market. it's the equivalent of one fall plant. why are we subsidizing foreign producers of cement with our stimulus dollars in it makes no sense. so the federal government on the one hand is enabling foreign producers and on the other hand is using the e.p.a. to further crip they will

domestic industry which was flat on its back in 2010 and this year in 2011 is going to be even worse. we need a viable infrastructure. we need a viable cement industry in america. this amendment, i think in an effective manner, addresses the problem. somebody at e.p.a. is going to have to answer for this. i know my constituents were enormously offended that the federal government would be doing so much to undermine this industry on the one hand through stimulus and on the other hand using e.p.a. to further limit their ability to operate. so again, this rule could force as many as 18 or more, we estimate 18 to more than 90 u.s. cement plants to end operations. others will be forced to dramatically reduce operations. i urge everybody in this chamber, everybody who is listening, paying attention, please support junge carter's amendment. it's important for american jobs and for american infrastructure. i'd be happy to yield.

mr. carter: i'd like to address some things said by my friends on the other side of the aisle. it's true that there may be 1,300 new jobs as he quoted. but 1,300 now e.p.a. inspectors are not jobs in the cement industry. the cost of doing the conversion, according to the industry spokesman, is about $3.5 billion industry-wide. and even then, they're not sure they're meeting all the standards being required by e.p.a. for instance, one requirement is hydrochloric acid has never been considered a problem. never been considered a problem by e.a.p. all of a sudden, we have to -- there's a regulation concerning hydrochloric acid. this is an almost $4 billion cost to an industry whose total net worth is approximately $10 billion. that is a tremendous, tremendous burden placed on

this industry and quite honestly, what we're twying to accomplish by this, before this regulation is actually implemented, is to say time out, we're not finding this, until you get back to the table and start working on a reasonable way to save american jobs and not encourage foreign jobs to take jobs away from an american. that's what this does. obviously by this thing going on in the port in new york, that's even more horrendous that we are actually attacking american jobs by our own efforts. so i yield back to my friend. >> my time -- mr. dent: my time is expired. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> i seek recognition to strike the last word. the chair: you are recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i want to be recognized in opposition to this carter amendment. this has nothing to do with saving costs or lowering the deficit. what this amendment would do is to stop e.p.a. from going ahead

and enforcing a rule that they put into place dealing with mercury, toxic emissions. it took them 10 years to get that rule in place. and why did they finally adopt the rule? because mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that causes learning disabilities, developmental damage, especially in young children. every year an estimated 60,000 american newborn babies are threatened with diminishedable to think and learn due to exposure to mercury pollution. now we have to balance things out. we want to protect these cement manufacturers, we want them to be profitable. but if we're going to let them continue with that mercury pollution we're going to have 60,000 kids that are going to be born with neurological problems. are we a congress that cares about life? well, i think we want both.

the industry to prosper and to stop the poisoning of our kids. so we ask the environmental protection agency to adopt a rule. they met with the industry people. they put out a proposed rule. they got comments to their rule. they finally put into place and now we would be asked under this amendment to stop it. as mr. carter suggests, go back and renegotiate. well, there's nothing to renegotiate. there's no rule in place. the national association of clean air agencies wrote a letter which i'm going to put as part of the record at the appropriate time, and they said, please oppose this amendment. they said, while there will be costs associated with the implementation of the rule, the benefits will far outweigh them. e.p.a. estimates that the regulations will yield $7 billion to $18 billion annually in benefits which is enormous

when compared to the estimated $350 million to $950 million in annual costs that e.p.a. has calculated. if you want to do it by dollars and cents, this is an agreeable bill for the american people. but if you want to do it for something even more important, life, of babies and children, we're talking about keeping them from being poisoned. these standards that are being put in place will limit toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns, the thirdlagest source of mercury pollution in america -- third largest source of mercury pollution in america. these standards will reduce mercury pollution from cement kilns by 92%. they also reduce other pollutants such as lead and ben zion which are known to cause -- benzine which are known to cause cancer and other catastrophic health consequences. reducing these toxic chemicals

also reduces fine particulate pollution which interferes with heart and lung function and triggers strokes, heart attacks and lung disease. the carter amendment would stop all of these efforts to protect the public health and the only reason we've heard is that they fear there's going to be a cost to the cement industry. yes, there will be. but that cost can be handled and we've always heard throughout the debate on environmental laws that the costs are going to outweigh the benefits. a rigorous economic analysis that was conducted and the economic analysis shows that the benefits of this regulation far outweigh the cost to the industry. let's not put -- let's not put corporate profits ahead of our children. i urge my colleagues not to agree to this amendment, they're common sense, they'll save

money, they'll create jobs and they'll save lives and let me just tell you further what e.p.a. estimated, what these standards will prevent. up to 2,500 premature deaths, 1,000 emergency room visits, 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 32,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms. we're talking about reducing health costs that could amount to $18 billion of every year and i think that's -- >> would the gentleman yield for a second? mr. waxman: i urge opposition to the carter amendment. i'm not going to yield because i think my time has expired and i see my colleague about to ask -- let me yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: is my time expired? mr. waxman: i would have yielded but it didn't work out. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri who is a member of the committee

rise? mrs. emerson: i move to strike the last word and yield my time to mr. dent of pennsylvania. mr. dent: thank you. thank you. i just wanted to address a couple of issues about the e.p.a. i've tried to point out very thoughtfully that the e.p.a. has failed really to properly address the economic impact of this proposed rule. it is critically flawed and let me restate once again why this rule is so flawed. because it does bring together, cobbles together a range of different performance character statistics for different -- characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it's possible for any single cement plant to comply with these standards simultaneously. that is the problem. and my distinguished colleague from california's making a point that there will be lessee missions. that is true because there will be fewer plants. they will not be emitting anything. we expect 18 plants that may be shuttered out of the 90 in this country. tremendous capital investment for an industry critical to our

basic infrastructure. these are high-paying jobs that we're talking about. we can't afford to lose that many more. that industry's become much more efficient over the years. these plants today produce far more than numerous plants would have produced years ago. so i just can't emphasize enough that as we are having this great debate about the nature of the economy and jobs, that we would be willfully using regulatory agencies that we know are going to cost thousands of jobs in america, high-paying jobs. when is enough enough? i won't get into the new york plant again, about how we're using stimulus dollars to bring cement from peru to new york to serve the market. and the reason they're stating is, you know, they're going to kill more jobs than they're going to create with this importation terminal. i can't get over this. they're bringing cement here because they would prefer to have fewer cement trucks from pennsylvania and even upstate new york and maryland supply new

york them. would rather have fewer cement trucks on their roads. they'd rather have bigger ships from peru rather than deal with the inconvenience of those cement trucks. my region takes a lot of garbage, trash, waste from new york. we get garbage trucks every day in my district. about to -- with new york garbage. and we landfill it. we're required to under the u.s. constitution. it's been in the supreme court. we do that. we're not shutting down our state line to them. and that industry. the point is, it's about cement. about it's basic industry, it's -- it's about basic industry, it's about american jobs. mr. carter: would the gentlelady yield? mrs. emerson: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: and i thank you for yielding. i just want to point out what my friend mr. waxman was pointing out. under the plan that's before us from the e.p.a., we're pretty well sure that 18 of our 90 plants are going to move

offshore. so we get to add 18 plants to the people who are polluting this area of the united states at almost a 100% pollutant and good scientific evident already tells us that 75% of the mercury pollution which is the argument the gentleman made is coming from outside the united states. now, we're adding 18 new plants to the 75 polluters and we're taking 18 plants away from the 25% side and to me i wonder how that balances out to make good sense for those poor sick kids that he was talking about. i mean, we're adding more pollution to the unregulated full scale polluters and we're harming and taking american jobs , the fathers and mothers of those very children he was talking, they're no longer going to have a job and somebody in china or india is going to have that job. and i think the american people

are pretty fed up with us trying to constantly ship good american jobs overseas. i hear my friends talk about, we are outsourcing. this is a form of outsourcing by regulating us out of business and sending those jobs over to where they open, with open arms and no regulations and lower wages. come on in, make your cement, we'll ship it back to the united states and use that new york terminal to bring it into the united states. and, you know, i think we need to rethink this. all we're asking is an implementation that doesn't drive us out of the country. that's simple. it's not that tough. i yield back. mrs. emerson: i believe my time may have expired. i yield my friend from california 20 seconds. which is all the time i have left. mr. waxman: if some of the pollution is coming from offshore, from china, which is true, that's no excuse for us to

allow more pollution to come from the sources here in the united states. and simply asking businesses to lower their emissions levels does not mean we push them to do business overseas. american businesses thrive even with environmental regulations. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair very much. mr. markey: what we're hearing this afternoon is a whole bunch of phony bologna numbers about how this is going to affect the cement industry, how this is going to affect the concrete industry. when in fact industry after industry in the united states has been able to comply with rules which protect the public health and safety. first, let's just define what we're talking about. and why american families are concerned about what the

portland cement industry is doing. here's what it is. ashe mercury which settles in lakes and rivers -- airborne mercury which settles in lakes and rivers and accumulates in animals and in its most dangerous form it is a neuro toxin that can lead to birth defects, stunted brain development and, you know, since we're at the top of the food chain and doctors and dietitians across the country are urging that families eat more fish, we are simultaneously urging them, especially those with small children or women who may be pregnant, to consume these fish that have the neurotoxins in them that we know leads directly to brain damage. to harm in children in our country. so, this is a concrete example of what the republican majority

is now trying to do. this is kind of a regulatory earmark for a single industry aimed at giving them the right to pollute, to send mercury into our atmosphere and ultimately into the bodies of the children of our country, when we know that thousands of them are going to die from the consumption of that mercury, that thousands more will have an aggravation of their asthma which they already have, the same thing will be true for senior citizens. and yet they're over here almost ignoring the health care impacts on families in our country. you know, we have people all across the country now going through food stores looking to find what the mercury count is in the food which they are purchasing for their families.

instead what the majority wants to do here today is to put a pair of portland cement shoes on the e.p.a. and then throw them into the river and if the e.p.a. doesn't die from drowning, the mercury's going to kill them. that's ultimately what the impact is going to be of this amendment. and so i understand that i was a trade association i would be arguing, you can't impose any kind of restrictions upon us to protect the children of our country. it's just too expensive. it's too hard for us to do. the chinese will take advantage of us protecting children from having mercury put into their brains, into their systems. but you want to know what? that's not a good enough excuse. for our country. our country is supposed to be

the leader in ensuring that the public health of our citizens is protected. and what has been constructed here is a very careful balance which ensures that the industry can survive and thrive at the same time that they are protecting the health and the safety of the children in our country. and there are other, by the way, many other people in the cement manufacturing industry who have contacted me, including companies in my own district, who do not support this position. and to say that it is actually quite within their power to be able to comply with these rules in terms of enhe suring that mercury is -- of ensuring that mercury is reduced in the production of cement, in concrete in our country. so this is for the narrow number of small companies that are seeking to be exempted from having to participate in something that the vast majority of the industry can comply with.

and i do not believe that our country is going to sink to a level where the health, the safety of the children in our country are going to be allowed to be compromised by amendments on this house floor, on behalf of a single, small industry, without any scientific justification except the bleedings that come from those that do not want to comply, knowing that the consequences will be the loss of thousands of lives and brain damage done to thousands of more who are children right now and will be affected by the vote that we cast here today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i rise to strike the scrufflingts -- the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i have three cement

plants in my district, midlothian, texas, the cement capital of texas, republicans are not for no regulation of mercury. we think this particular mercury rule is flawed. my good friend the former chairman, mr. waxman of california, talked about the rigorous analysis that was done. his definition is rigorous and my definition of rigorous are not one and the same. we think that analysis was fairly flawed. i would point out that most pollutants, and we do agree that mercury is a pluenttant, are measured in tons. -- is a pollutant, are measured in tons. mercury emissions from these plans are measured in pounds per year. mercury is a trace element of these pollutants. we think that we should go back and actually do a real economic analysis and also a health analysis, my good friend from

massachusetts was talking about the dangers of the health, those are real dangers. but again, given the trace amounts of mercury emitted per year are in pounds, it is a very tenuous connection to say that the mercury from a cement plant has a direct correlation with some of the potential side effects that mr. markey was talking about. i think this is a good amendment. i want to support it. i now want to yield to my good friend mr. akin for, i believe he has an amendment to the amendment. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. i had an amendment -- the chair: is the gentleman offering a secondary amendment?

mr. akin: i was intending to offer amendment number 181, but i've decided to withdraw the amendment but was going to simply speak on the subject. the chair: the carter amendment is pending. and the gentleman from texas has yielded his time. mr. barton: rereclaim my time. i yield a minute to the -- to my good friend from florida to speak on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> everybody here supports -- mr. diaz-balart: everybody here supports protecting the environment. every american supports protecting the environment. but we also support protecting the jobs of the people who live in that environment and some of us don't support arbitrary decisions that are going to lose thousands of jobs, that are going to close plants. again, while there is a consensus in this body to

protect the environment, there does not seem to be, mr. chairman, a con ken us is on protecting the job the american people who are desperate for jobs and without this amendment we're going to lose more jobs. let's have some common sense. let's protect the environment and protect american jobs. i yield back. mr. barton: i yield to the gentleman. mr. carter: having raised four children, i'm offended at being accused of wanting to harm children. that's not the purpose of this. i would argue that between 5% and 100% of the mercury pollutants in 2/3 of the american continent or the country of america is coming from foreign sources and the only solution those who cannot meet these onerous requirements have to stay in business is to move to foreign countries where they do not regulate air quality and i would argue that we are taking it away from the

polluters by this amendment by saying, wait a minute, let's look at this and talk it out. that's what we're trying to do. and so i would argue that i'm trying to save the lives of american children because the foreigners are polluting our air and 75% of those pollutants are created by foreign countries where the only choice for these people to stay in business is to move there. i yield back. mr. barton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: i yield my time to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. mr. waxman: i've been astounded by some of the things said in the house that there has not been a careful analysis of this proposal and the harm that comes with these mercury pollutants. because the national

association of clean air agencies, the people who enforce the clean air laws, talked about regulation yielding $7 billion to $18 billion annually in benefits which is enormous compared to the estimated $350 million to $950 million in annual costs. we have clear -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. waxman: no, i want to complete my statement, then we'll see if the gentleman who yielded to me wants to yield to you. cement plants employ workers who also can get sick from all of this. but the american cement industry did a report on their own on this. and in november of last year, analysis by the portland cement association predicts that domestic cement production will increase more than 25% from

today's levels by 2013 when these rules go into effect, and more than 50% by 2015. so they don't think they'll be losing jobs under this proposal. my friend from texas, mr. barton says, these are trace amounts. this is a very intense toxic substance. and he says there hasn't been a vigorous analysis. we've got numbers with the analysis we've had. i don't know what analysis the cement caucus has for us but i think that mr. markey was correct when he stated this is an industry in certain areas that want to avoid spending money to stop the pollution from their plants. and it is just not a good excuse. it is not a good excuse to me to say that because some of the mercury comes from overseas and other places we should allow the mercury to continue right here in the united states. so i yield back my time to the

gentleman. mr. carter: will the gentleman yield to me for a question? the chair: the gentleman from new york controls the time. mr. carter: i'm sorry. would the gentleman from new york yield? i thank my friend, congressman serrano. would mr. waxman agree with me that if you get one of these new squiggly mercury bulbs and break it you'll be exposed to more mercury than the amount you're exposed to from a cement plant. mr. waxman: i don't agree with that. mr. barton: i think that's a correct statement. mr. waxman: i don't know enough to answer that statement. mr. barton: some of the benefits and costs you talk about are not borne out. mr. waxman: i should trust your analysis more than the environmental protection agency, o.m.b.? i don't think so. the chair: the gentleman from new york controls the time. mr. serrano: reclaiming my time, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise -- missouri rise? mr. akin: i have an amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> we ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: the gentleman asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri now rise? mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. akin: mr. speaker, i have an amendment, number 181, which it's my plan to withdraw following a comment here. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment?

mr. akin: yes, mr. speaker, i do. i do not. i don't offer it. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes under his request to strike the last word. mr. akin: mr. speaker, the amendment that i was thinking i was going to offer and actually we can't is on the energy independence and security act of 2007. it's an interesting topic because we're going back again once more to the subject of mercury, but really we're going to a more basic subject than mercury and that's the subject of freedom. because this energy independence and security act of 2007 is a de facto ban on the plain old light bulb that americans have known for a long time. it's the incandescent bulb. this de facto ban essentially says that all the new light bulbs have to be these mercury vapor fluorescent light bulbs. so the question that comes to my mind is, aside from the

benefits of one type of light bulb over another, and you could argue the benefits the mercury pay vaypor light bulb is a little more expensive but saves energy. but the incandescent light bulb burns more energy but it doesn't have any mercury that you're bringing into your living room and the point, though, is, don't we trust our constituents to pick the kind of light bulb that they want? i'm just wondering if there's anybody in this chamber who wants to stand up and vote and say, i'm going to tell my constituents what kind of light bulb they ought to buy. i mean, light bulbs are used in a lot of different contexts, a lot of different situations. if people want these mercury vapor bulbs with good efficiency, fine, let them buy one. but don't tell them they can't buy another kind of bulb which may meetnary circumstances. i think that's the kind of arrogance that the public is really fed up with out of

congress is when we have this arrogant attitude that we're going to tell people even what kind of light bulb to buy. what my amendment was going to do was to strike this piece of legislation. technically, we can't do that. on this appropriations bill. so we have to wait for a different venue in order to do it. but i would conclude with the observation that for decade after decade in america, the symbol of innovation and bright ideas was always the light bulb and unfortunately this bill is a bulb that just seems to barely get dim. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have amendment number 204 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 204, prinned in the congressional record, offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. we've seen over the last two years under president obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars. these unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fief doms that nobody can seem to -- fiefdoms that nobody can seem to identify where they are and what they're doing but they're wielding vast amounts of power, sm of them making six-figure salaries yet you can't find out what they're doing yet you've got a separate cabinet that's appointed, goes through the scrutiny of senate confirmation, which is the process that is supposed to be followed for people who make these kind of high level decisions. in fact, i support the ability of the president to organize his administration and of course if you look at article 2, section 2 of the constitution, it lays out the

process for having these types of appointments and it requires senate confirmation. yet you've got this shadow government that literally completely avoided the transparency and accountability of that senate scrutiny. what we do in this amendment, which sacks these czars, we actually go through and i'll start with the obamacare czar. we had a vote here on the house floor to repeal obamacare, which i'm proud to have supported, i hope we continue to see it move through the senate. we had a hearing the other day, over 900 companies have already gotten exemptions. went and lied up at the white house, must have known somebody right over there, were able to get exempted from this law the president says is so important, so great, going to solve all these problems yet 900 companies have already been able to get secret exemses. how have they tone this? who didn't get an exemption? of course our local businesses on main street would love to get that exemption. they didn't get that opportunity. we can't even find out who got these exemptions.

so we are getting rid of the obamacare czar. let's go to the climate czar. of course you've got a person in there right now that supposedly is going to be leaving, this is a person who has continued to do things behind closed doors. in fact, when the moratorium on drilling came out it was the climate czar that doctored the president's own scientific study to try to say that scientists that the president appointed recommended a moratorium on drilling. the scientists didn't say that at all. the white house had to apologize for the actions of the climate czar for ha they did, again, behind closed doors, nobody can find out exactly what they're doing, so she's leave, let her leave and take the funding too. the global warming czar. there's a czar out there trying to still impose a cap and trade regime. of course congress has rejected cap and trade, we've seen study after study, in fact, spain came up with a study that showed what happened when they tried to implement a cap and trade regime and what they found out was for every green

job they key ated they lost over 20 full-time jobs in the private sector. they detailed that very well in their study about what that policy does. national association of manufacturing said, cap and trade would run over three million jobs out of this country. yet we've got a global warming czar that's running around up there with taxpayer money promoting a policy that would destroy jobs that this congress doesn't even support. again, you've got the green jobs czar. the green jobs czar, they haven't even filled the job of the green job czar since the last one resigned in disgrace. the last green jobs czar left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and tried to blame the government, the american government, for september 11 attacks. and so of course that person left in disgrace. the job's still not even vacant. let's get rid of it. the guantanamo bay closure czar. guantanamo bay, in fact, if you look at it, it's estimated that we'd have to spend over $200

million to build another facility to hold them, nobody wants them. new york said, we surely don't want to try these terrorists on american soil right down the street from where the world trade centers were attacked. and yet you've got a guantanamo bay closure czar when the president himself now has even backed off of closing guantanamo bay. and that's i support him in that. we shouldn't be closing guantanamo bay, although we shouldn't have a czar that's running around out there doing who know what is for closing down guantanamo bay. there's a fairness drocktrin czar that we get rid of. he's trying to undermine the first amendment rights of talk radio hosts. there may be some people on the other side that don't like some things said on talk radio, that's their prerogative. the beauty is you have a first amendment that dictates that and a marketplace. the bottom lines is the time that we re-establish our responsibility as a legislative branch. let's get back to those constitutional principles and let's get rid of these czars. we shouldn't have the government

running car companies, we shouldn't have the government running the shadow government and we shouldn't have all these czars. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair notes that the house is not in order. the committee is not in order. thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: the white house staff is advising the president, coordinating policy on complex issues that cut across cabinet departments and federal agencies. let's take a look at one example. one target of criticism has been the climate change czar. what cabinet secretary other agency had would otherwise have the lead on climate change issues? the administrator of a.p.a.?

the secretary of energy? the secretary of the interior? the secretary of state? because climate change is fundamentally an international issue. the fact is that all these officials and many more have a role and that's why the president has designated a senior white house staff member to coordinate activity and policymaking on climate changes. they do not have legal authority to take action. rather that final decision making authority can only be exercised by heads of agencies or other officials properly appointed and in most cases confirmed by the senate. in modern times there's nothing unusual about the white house and its staff playing a leading role in policymaking. especially on issues important to the president. but let me touch on a subject now that some people may not want to touch on. look, let's be honest. this is not about czars. this is about the person that

lives in the white house. today we're going to see amendments that say we should not have repairs on the white house structure. tonight we're going to see an amendment that says, listen to this, that the president should not have, paid for by the taxpayers, a teleprompter. you can believe this? this may be the 6:00 national news. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. serrano: i'm not going to yield for now even if the amendment has been withdrawn. >> ok, i just thought it was to clarify -- mr. serrano: the teleprompter. i'm going to give some folks on the other side, with all due respect and love and affection, some advise. when you look at the -- advice. when you look at the white house think of it as the monument it is. think of it as the structure where the president of any party lives. don't get hung up on the fact that he lives there. notice i didn't mention the name

because i don't want to upset you. don't get upset at who uses the teleprompter. don't get upset at who -- whose plumbing needs repair in the white house for 50 years. make believe it's the last president. please repair the white house. please allow him to have staff, please allow him to be president. but don't get hung up on the fact that he is the president because i know that upsets you. you can't accept the fact that he is the president. don't let that bother you. just concentrate on the issue and concentrate, mr. speaker, i think we should concentrate on the fact that the white house structure itself is a building we should keep in good shape. it falls under my subcommittee jurisdiction and mrs. emerson's chairmanship. we have a president who may at times use a teleprompter. let him use it. because if we get into that then our staff may not be able to

write notes for us in the future because it's the same thing. so, yeah, sometimes it may not be this president, it may be another, i wish i could mention his name right now but i know it upsets the heck out of many people on that side. so don't go after him just do what -- him, just do what needs to be done. and thanks terrible amendment and it should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. i would love to allow my very close friend and colleague from new york to continue. however i will say that i do agree with him and we will discuss this later this evening. that in fact the white house is the white house and it's a historic -- an historic building and it should be cared for. but the issue at hand is the number of people not subject to

senate confirmation who work there. and i want to rise in support of our colleague from louisiana's amendment, to address the issue of czars in this administration and i will admit that there are too -- there were too many in several of the past administrations as well. and i also hope that the government oversight and reform committee will actually mark up the scalise bill so that we can address this issue once and for all. i do know for a fact that in spite of what my good friend from new york said, the health care czar, who is no longer in that position and it's why we have actually eliminated that position as well as the climate change position in the continuing resolution, i believe that several colleagues had sat many, many meetings with the health care czar in the white house when that position was

filled and that she was actually coordinating all of the work done on the current health care law. so the fact or the statement that these folks don't have any power is absolutely not true based on personal experience with the person who actually held that position. so, i love the idea of getting rid of some more of these czars that will save us a lot of money. we have excellent people. even if we don't agree with them, who are the heads of agencies and departments in the government and they should be allowed to do their jobs themselves instead of having interference from even more people. so with that i support the amendment from mr. scalise and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. chairman, being of an optimistic nature i look for silver linings so i look for

the fact that my colleaguings on the other side have adopted gender neutral language. a large number of the czars would have been called czarinas in the old days. i also -- i guess they were in a little bit of a hurry. the gentlewoman from missouri has spoken, the gentleman from louisiana, and they listed the czars they didn't like. they overlooked one. maybe it was hard to read. here's one of the ones they want to eliminate. many of the once they want to eliminate -- ones they want to eliminate have already been eliminated. they're denying funding for nonexistence positions, climate change, health care. i'll yield to the gentlewoman. mrs. emerson: but the money in the funds still exist. we're trying to save some money here. mr. frank: rather than deal with it this way, i would have thought in the c.r., you're telling me that the republican appropriations committee majority funded some nonexistent positions. i'd have advice for the chairwoman, next time don't do that and we won't have this problem.

there are some positions that they did fund that they would defund that still exists. i understand they were in a hurry so they forget to mention -- forgot that mention all of them. here's the one they forgot to mention. the special master for tarp, executive compensation, department of the treasury. that is the special master whose job it is to monitor excessive compensation of those tarp recipients who got special assistance and still owe the federal government money. what they want to do is knock out the person whose job it is to monitor compensation at a.i.g. and at general motors and at chrysler and at ally. mrs. emerson: will the gentleman yield? mr. frank: yes. mrs. emerson: i'm pleased to tell my good friend that that position is removed from this legislation as well. mr. frank: i have an amendment which says special master of tarp executive compensation and department of treasury. the amendment i have defunds and says you can't pay --

mrs. emerson: in fact this amendment -- mr. frank: i haven't yielded yet. mrs. emerson: oh,, pardon me. mr. frank: i want to make this clear, this is the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. the one i got says, lines 18 and 19, special master of tarp executive compensation department of the treasury. is the gentlewoman telling me i was given a defective copy? i yield. mrs. emerson: yes, i must tell you, my good friend, that you must have received a copy that perhaps missed a page. mr. frank: i take back my time. i would tell the gentlewoman, i would ask that not to come out of my time, a parliamentary inquiry. what's the text of the amendment? this is the one we were given. could i get a reading of the text of the amendment? or could i get a copy of the amendment? because i have an amendment -- the chair: the gentleman can ask unanimous consent for that. mr. frank: i would ask unanimous consent -- >> would the gentleman yield for a moment? i'm confused on your question. i may be able to clarify.

mr. frank: i yield to the gentleman from texas. if you mention cement i'm not yielding. mr. carter: i promise not to mention cement. mr. frank: then i yield. because where i come from cement was not good news for the people who were put into it. i yield to the gentleman. mr. carter: i got you. if you're asking the question, are we attempting to defund that czar, we are. mr. frank: then i take back my time and i would ask unanimous consent that special debate time be allotted so the gentleman from texas can debate the gentlewoman from missouri because they seem to be undecided between them about it. so the question i have is, this amendment, as it was presented, says you can't pay the person whose job it is to stop excessive compensation at tarp recipient. the gentlewoman from missouri says it's not in there. mr. carter: we misunderstood you, sir. mr. frank: so it is in here. so this amendment would say to

a.i.g. and general motors and chrysler and ally, the financial company, no one will now be supervising what you do and even though you haven't yet paid back the federal government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation. i should note by the way, in the condemn nation of these czar positions, one of the ones that's now vacant that they get rid of, is the senior advisor on the auto industry. that's one of the great successes of the bush-obama administration -- mrs. emerson: will the gentleman yield? mr. frank: not at this point. i would tell the gentlewoman, if would you work it out with the gentleman from texas and come up with a joint answer, i've yielded several times, one of the czars they are complaining about presided over a bush-obama transition in policy that kept general motors and chrysler alive. we have auto industries flourishing in america and suppliers today. that was partly because of this position that is that's now vacant that they want to get rid of retroactively. i will yield and please explain

to me what it means when you say you are going to deny the funds for the special master for tarp. i'll yield to whoever wants me to yield. the gentleman from kentucky? the gentlewoman from missouri? mrs. emerson: i would just like to tell my friend that the office of financial stability, which does -- in the department of treasurey, which does oversee all of this still remains and -- mr. frank: i take it back. i take back my time. now the third answer i get is, yes, they do get rid of the special master. there's an office there with nobody heading it. i would ask for an additional two minutes, having yielded so much of my time. mr. frank: two minutes, having yielded so much of my time. the chair: the will the gentleman yield? does the gentleman from kentucky object to the unanimous consent? >> i do not.

the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank thank you. >> will the gentleman yield briefly? to the czars i say niet. mr. frank: i leave it to the gentleman to work out his fantasy. there a special master, whose job it is to prevent excessive compensation from those tarp resip yens still out there, ample i.g., yen motors, chrysler and ally. this amendment strikes it. this amendment leaves us without a person of great responsibility and i think that -- by the way, it's only the top 100 employees, i cannot understand why members would want to send this signal because many of these positions are already vacant, that one of the positions that's not vacant is our effort to put limits on compensation bonuses and other

excessive compensation for those entities that still owe the federal government money. why our colleagues decide that that position should be apoll -- abolished and why that person should not be there, it's baffling to me. i can't believe that's what people think the american people want, namely a restriction on the restriction. a relaxation on the restriction of bonuses and other compensation paid to large recipients who have not yet paid back their tarp money. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for his considering. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kansas, for what purpose do you rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> iize to speak on this amendment, similar to one i was going to offer as well. it would strike the climate

change czar, the global warming czar, also known as the cement czar, as well. mr. chairman, all kidding aside, my question i would have is, what is the president afraid of? this is not an issue of what is covered here. the issue is that the president has overstepped his constitutional authority. in naming these czars and disregards the separation of powers and refuses to submit these names for confirmation. it's of course my opinion, one of many examples of executive excess from this administration, czars are unaccountable, unelected and they are given considerable authority which undermines the rule of law. again, why is the president afraid of submitting these names for consideration. i would argue probably because they might not be confirmed. more than 30 czars have been appointed by the president, not all those are directed at in

this amendment but this amendment seeks to defund approximately nine of these czars, including czars to oversee global warming policy as well as the closure of get me. mr. chairman, i would like to note that just yesterday, the administration indicated that if they did catch osama bin laden, they would send him to gitmo. at the same time, they have a czar that continues to close gitmo. certainly the president has the authority to appoint staff as necessary but at the same time, his advisors are not there to make law, mr. chairman. that is our job. that is the job of the senate. this is an issue of whether the legislative branch is going to write the laws, mr. chairman. supporters of this type of style of government suggest in the past, other presidents have appointed czars and mr. chairman, czars might not have started with the obama administration but they should end with this budget.

with that, i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: you are recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me do as my good friend, mr. serrano did, not mention any president's name, and let me ask my colleagues, again, i explain to all of us and hopefully those who are listening, this c.r. stops work in the middle of its track. this is a cut-off of functioning work as we speak. and there is functioning work. just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to refund to the damaged, the worn, and the torn of the b.p. oil spill, czars are name -- or names that you would call them are working. i am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term that presidents use to get

tasks done that ultimately may be valuable enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a particular agency. now we still call the drug czar the drug czar. and i'm reminded of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective and the reason for the czar term for presidents to emfa sides how important the issue was or is to the american people. why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally, if you will, in a broad-based amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who are in the course of their work impacting the american people, whether it's tarp or the b.p. oil spill, they are in fact helping get through a difficult problem. the very nature of the term, a difficult problem. so i would say to my friends, as i will be saying later about an amendment that has been offered, but i'm disturbed

about denying funding to the transportation security administration, what i would say in cutting their office, not recognizing the value of their work, i would likewides say that it is crucial that we allow presidents, plural, to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select individuals to complete those tasks. i rise to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas who is a member of the committee. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i rise in support of the scalise amendment. i actually have also an amendment that i filed which i am withdrawing to defound 24 czarships, czar and czarita-ships, duh i -- but i decided comity would be better for i join mr. scalise. i think he has a good amendment here. the chairman has asked that we

move forward and i agree. so i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman -- the gentlelady from california. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise on this amendment being offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and i just want to say at the outset that i don't think any of this is a joke. ms. eshoo: first of all, czars and czarinas are from russia. this is the united states of america. i think that throwing this kind of terminology around is really not befitting of the house and what we do. if we disagree with policy, and we do, we debate that.

if in fact there are people that work in the government that are policy advisors and have no legal weight to their positions, so be it. most frankly, every single one of us have them in our offices. your chiefs of staff, your policy advisors on legislation, they don't carry any legal weight but they are policy advisors to us. this particular target is to one individual, one individual, this is very unusual where you go after one individual in the middle of a bureaucracy who is the chief diversity officer. at the f.c.c. the federal communications commission. and this individual is in charge of expanding opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in

the communications marketplace. now, i think one of the things that is absolutely goes to the core of democracy is how many voices speak to the many, whether there is media consolidation in this country or not. there's some right-wing radio people that seem to dislike this person, i don't really agree with these right-wing radio talk show hosts, nor do i care to jump into what they dislike about this individual. but to bring something like this to the floor of the house where an individual is working to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses in appropriate roles, participating in the communications marketplace, i

think is a -- is an amendment that is not worthy of the support of members. >> would the gentlewoman yield? ms. eshoo: i'd be glad to. mr. frank: many of these positions are vacant. i want to stress, i have not heard a defense of the proposal that we remove from the federal government the highest profile individual charged with controlling compensation excesses at four companies which continue to be the recipients of special assistance. i do not understand this desire to free a.i.g. from restriction, general motors and chrysler, they have been successful but they owe the federal government money. ally, the financial company, owes the federal government money. you can go one by one and i haven't heard a defense of it. why would we say that the individual most responsible for limiting excessive compensation

to tarp recipients should no longer be able to work with the federal government and no one should fill that position. i yold back to the gentlewoman. ms. eshoo: reclaiming my time, i don't know how much time i have left, but i think we need to start rethinking some of this. i can't help but think that campaign ads should just be played on the floor, get it out of everybody's system on the czar issue and move on. but these are individuals that are carrying out their duties in the executive branch. if you want to vote against expanding opportunities for women and minorities in the media, then do an amendment on that. why saw this guy's head off? because some talk show host said so? i think that this is poorly devised, poorly thought out and does no grace to the house of

representatives. >> i appreciate and associate myself with your remarks. did you mention that the associate joan counsel and chief diversity officer of the federal communications is cut out of this as well? ms. eshoo: yes. mr. dicks: that's rather shocking. ms. eshoo: that's what's in the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time is expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. boustany: i rise in strong support of the scalise amendment. let me explain why. one word, accountability. americans across this country are tired of the lack of accountability. they want to know what's going on with the government and they're tired of empty platitudes. we've seen this when we brought

cabinet secretaries and other whors in official positions in front of our committees and we can't get anns to simple questions on energy policy, tax policy, health care policy. we get empty platitudes. because the policies being formulated in the white house with these so-called advisors, these sars, whatever you want to call them. but i want to point out something, that when we had the situation with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico and a pair of experts, engineers, scientists came forth and looked at this and give their initial report, there was no recommendation for an industry-wide moratorium on drilling. and they issued a formal report. and what happened? this formal report was altered after the fact by somebody within the white house, the so-called special -- assistant to the president for energy and climate change.

now this is not the kind of open and transparent policy making the american people deserve and demand. i think in the last election, they spoke out because they did not like what was happening. the lack of oversight. and if this congress is going to do oversight, we have to have access to those who make the policy and get answers. and when we get railroaded and the run-around and just empty platitudes time and time again, whether it's on health care policy or energy policy, or tax policy, trade policy, whatever it is, that's not what the american people want. if this congress is going to be able to lennell slate and do right by the american people, we have to be able to get the information from this white house. and that's why i stand here and i stand with the american people and i say, it's time to put an end to this opaque atmosphere in washington. let's be open with the american people and those who are making policy should become the --

should come before our committees to testify so that we know what the policy is that the white house is advocating and we can legislate in a responsible way, so for those of you who didn't understand the russian comment that -- the russian word no, niet, i want to say, it is no to the czars. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: i think that this amendment is typical of many of the proposals from the other side of the aisle that paint with a broad brush the entire federal government. this is a complex world. a president needs an ability to govern. the president relies on many of these executive positions to effectively govern this country. it's not a democratic or republican thing. about having an effective executive and an effective administrative branch. that doesn't mean that there's not common ground and while i certainly oppose this amendment, i would love to work with the gentleman and others to look at

these positions one by one. we have discussed a proposal to eliminate the drug czar, for instance. drug czar's office spends $21 million a year and drug use has gone up since its inception, illegal drug use. there are ways that we can work together. but a blatant removal of the ability of a president to effectively govern the country is not a wise measure and one that i rise in opposition to and encourage a more thoughtful discussion that could in fact lead to the elimination of some of these so-called czar positions. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. seeing no one rising, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

>> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the request for a recorded vote has been made. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to offer amendment number 458. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 458 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. frank of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. chairman, this is a deficit-neutral amendment. it provides more money for the securities and ex commission -- exchange commission than the resolution. i should say that i regret some of the choices that i had to make here and particularly i've spoke want ranking member of the subcommittee, i would not be happy to have to ask for the

services be diminished, although by small amounts and i would hope this could be amended better in the senate where there's more flexibility. but the key issue here is not a deficit issue but a policy issue. should the security exchange commission, which was given increased re-- responsibilities in the financial reform bill, be given less money in this fiscal year than had had in the previous one? -- than it had in the previous one? the current budget is $1.18 billion or the fiscal -- last year's budget. under the c.r. that would be reduced by nearly $50 billion. $50 million. i shouldn't say billion, this is a relatively small agency. the republican resolution would reduce the amount given to the s.e.c. for this fiscal year by $48 million from the last fiscal year. now, one of the things we did for the financial reform bill was to tell the s.e.c. that we want hedge funds to register.

we want them to begin to regulate derivatives. not by putting margins on end users as they just made clear they're not planning to do but by requiring the price be made public. there's been a lot of talk about the shadow banking system. with regard to a variety of these entities not regulated now by the bank regulators, we have asked to show some information. hedge funds aren't being told what to do, they're being asked to register. we have tried to, frankly, bring some light to the shadow banking system. but as a result of the c.r., the shadows will remain unpierced. the s.e.c. is given new sponlts for the rest of protection. we have asked the s.e.c. to enforce a new fiduciary responsibility for people who are telling other people how to invest their money in various ways. they won't be able to carry it out. technologically they are not yet up to the point where they can deal with things like the flash

crash. now, people will point to mistakes by the s.e.c. in the past. of course there were. they were partly ideological but they were partly a matter of competence. but it was also probably an inadequate resource. what we do in this amendment, frankly, is not even reach the proposal that the administration wanted. i would like to have done. that but there are constraints here because we have to take money from the i.r.s. and from the general services administration. and from the treasury department. so what we have done is to give them part of what was asked. we do give them an increase over fiscal 2010. we do not reach the amount the administration says they need to carry out the new responsibilities given. so let's be very clear. this is not about the deficit. this is deficit-neutral.

the question is, do you want to fund increased responsibilities to the s.e.c. or do you not? do you want them to be able to hire the kind of people they need, do you want them to improve their technology? does the gentleman want me to yield? mrs. emerson: no. i'm just waiting to go after you. mr. frank: i thought you were going to tell me i was mistaken again. the issue here is that in fiscal 2010, this agency spent $1.18 billion. the administration asked for $1. 258 billion. we would get them to $1.2 billion. we would get them part of the way there. we don't get them all the way there because we are under constraints. but the notion that you should give the s.e.c. less in the current fiscal year than they had last year and ask them to monitor hedge funds, to ask them to improve investor protection, to ask them to look at derivative tives makes no sense. if you don't believe we should increase transparency of hedge funds and derivatives, then don't vote for this amendment. if you think we're at a perfect

solution here, don't vote for this. but it's hard for me to believe that people think that the s.e.c. is adequately funded. by the way, what the c.r. are do is to make the s.e.c. not so much a regulator as a profit center. because the s.e.c. brings in more money than this budget will give them. they bring in money with transaction fees and then they distribute some money to investors. so here we have, and know there are many on the other side who didn't like the bill we passed, but i thought there was some parts i liked more than others. i didn't know we had a view that derivatives should remain totally unregulated. when i talk about derivative regulation in the s.e.c., we're not talking about imposing margin requirements, we're talking about making things transparent. so i hope the agreement is agreed to and we begin to get the s.e.c. back into the position of being a responsible regulator. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. emerson: thank you, chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: since 2001, in the

wake of the enron scandal, this committee has more than doubled the s.e.c.'s budget. in fact the f.c.c.'s budget has increased 163%. since 2001. and i'd like to remind my colleagues that in 2001 the f.c.c. was funded specifically at $423 million. last year this committee provided the f.c.c. with an appropriation of $1.1 billion. and yet even with all of the money that we have given them, and the opportunities they have had to begin upgrading their compute source yes they could deal with flash crashes and the like and hire more people and tougher enforcers, in spite of all that they missed two major ponzi schemes, they've had difficulty, every single year since 2004 submitting clean budget statements for audits. they've had consistent trouble

in their leasing practices which has led to millions of taxpayer dollars wasted. and to be more specific to the ponzi schemes regarding them, the s.e.c. has had multiple, multiple complaints filed against both entities over a decade before either individual was even charged. so how is it also that the agency that's in charge, as my good friend says, and needs to be in charge of regulating our financial markets, can't even produce an accurate financial statement of their own since 2004, in spite of the fact that since 2001 we've doubled their -- we've increased their budget by 153%? mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield? mrs. emerson: i have to finish and if i have leftover time i'll yield to you. in addition the s.e.c.'s own inspector general has cited the agency for poor leasing service practices which have led to millions of taxpayer dollars

being wasted on unused lease space. i'm sure my colleagues have read in the newspaper about the hundreds of thousands of square feet of lease space that they leased in anticipation of the work they might do, but they leased it by the bill was even passed and money appropriated. so when my colleague argues that the s.e.c. doesn't have enough funding, i've got to argue, perhaps they do, but they're not using the funding in the appropriate ways. i mean, awful us have had to tighten our belts. and i understand the need for us to have strong regulation. i am not opposed to strong regulation of the financial industry, of banks and nonbanks and hedge funds and the like. but at a time when we're all trying to do more with less, i think that it's important for all of the agencies of the government to do more with less too. and so even with the cuts in this bill, the s.e.c. is still going to be funded at over $1

billion. mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield? mrs. emerson: when i'm finished, thanks. and so i believe very, very strongly that we must make this agency understand that they've got to try to revamp the systems they've got within. and to use the moneys that we've given them, in addition to all the fees they've collected, more appropriately. and they need to try to do that. if they can't then we can discuss this again. but we need to continue saving money. and plus my colleague has taken too much money from the g.s.a. in addition to the $1.7 billion we've taken, so you're cutting them more, you're cutting the i.r.s. by over $600 million. mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield? mrs. emerson: and consequently we won't even -- ok. we are cutting the i.r.s., we are cutting the i.r.s. by over $600 million, excuse me, i misspoke.

i didn't mean you were cutting it. but then you want to cut on top of the $600 million that we're already cutting it. and that's one -- what you want to add to what we want to add, perhaps cuts the legs out from them. so consequently we have to vote against my friend's amendment. i'm sorry. mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield as i yielded to her? mrs. emerson: i'll yield what time i can to the gentleman. mr. frank: did i yield to the gentlewoman when she asked me. mrs. emerson: i just said i would yield to you. mr. frank: additional cuts are a small percentage of your cuts to the i.r.s.'s g.s.a. and i hope they are restored when we get a broader set. but the basic point is that, yes, there were problems in 2004 and before. i believe we have a better run s.e.c. now, better people who care about it and to punish the investors, to punish the financial -- the american public because of past mistakes but the s.e.c., by reducing them from one year to the next is a very grave error. i think this does reflect --

mrs. emerson: reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. emerson: why then are the people who were involved in madoff still working at the s.e.c.? mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield? the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words and in support of the frank amendment. i yield to the gentlewoman from massachusetts -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i thank the gentleman. i want to reiterate my disappointment to my colleague from missouri. i yielded to her. i won't yield again. i learned that lesson. i yielded to her she yielded to me with a few seconds left and immediately took back her time. first of all, she wants to punish the american public and the american economy because some people were not up to it in the past. with madoff we have a new set of commissioners. it broke in the end of 2008. we have a new director of enforcement. yes, i want the s.e.c. to get better. but the notion that they can

take on complex new responsibilities regarding derivatives and hedge funds with less money this year than they had last year is laughable. the gentlewoman said she's for regulation but she voted against the bill, which it was her right to do that, and if we're going to relitigate that bill, lease -- let's do it. many in the financial industry don't want to see these cuts. for them the worst situation is to have the rules and no capacity to have them promulgated and enforced. yes, the s.e.c. has made mistakes. by the way, if the standard was if you wasted money in the past would you lose the budget, we would be saving hundreds of billions in the pentagon budget. that logic never appears to apply to the defense department. mr. dicks: regaining my time, i will put my statement into the record and proceed. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: the majority's continuing resolution cuts funding to the s.e.c. by $188 billion. such a cut would leave our financial marks including the derivatives market unpoliced and effectively unregulated. in effect, the continuing resolution would take the wall street cop, its only cop, off the beat. the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act would prevent another financial crisis like the one that crippled credit markets in 2008 by authorizing the s.e.c. to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisors and broker-dealers and rein in credit rating agencies. in order to do this, the s.e.c.

needs additional funding. i am a little bit surprised that the gentlelady from missouri talks about punishing the agency and making them understand. no, this is about accepting responsibility and helping to protect the average investor. we have people who lost all of their savings in this -- and their 401k's with the meltdown and now we're talking about not funding the very agency that has a responsibility for protecting the investors? i don't think so. unfortunately, house republicans don't want the s.e.c. to step up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. if this cut becomes law, the s.e.c. would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its information technology budget down to $86 million. its lowest level of information technology spending since 2003. at this level, the s.e.c. would

not be able to implement the new system it needs to protect the nation's security markets. from 2005 to 2007, that is, during the period up to the crisis that imploded in 2008, the s.e.c. lost 10% of its staff. in addition, from 2005 to 2009, the s.e.c.'s investment in information technology declined 50%. during this time, trading volume doubled. the number of investment advisors has increased by 50% and the funds they manage have increased 55% to $33 trillion. let's put these numbers into perspective. the s.e.c.'s 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including 11,450 investment advisors,

7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers and more than 10,000 public companies. furthermore, these staff police companies that trade on average $8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day. what does this mean for the average investor? without adequate funding, the s.e.c. won't be able to do its job. simple as that. protecting the average investor. as financial markets an investments become more and more complex, the average investor has confidence in making an investment because he or she knows that there is a system in place to protect him. this continuing resolution will undermine that system. we've all heard of bernie madoff and the massive, multiyear fraud he perpetrated on thousands of investors. bernie madoff was just one man. imagine a world in which there are hundreds of bernie madoffs who play unchecked on

investors. that's the world we will be in if the majority's cuts for the s.e.c. becomes law. mr. speaker and members, if we want to create jobs and spur investment in our economy, we must fully fund the s.e.c. i don't see how anyone can make a rational argument that the s.e.c. should be level funded or underfunded when we know that that's the only police on the beat to protect our investors and ensure that people who have invested in their retirement will have to go back to work at 65 and 7 -- won't have to go back to work at 65 and 0 and 5 years old. that's what happened when we had this meltdown. now we know what happened. we have good management overthere -- over there. we have people who understand what they need. they have come to people who have been elected and sent to congress to do a job. that job is to look out for the average person.

the average american. all of our constituents are not interested in punishing the s.e.c. they want to make it work. i submit to you that this amendment is important to help make it work. do not follow the lead of the people on the opposite side of the aisle who would endanger all of our investments. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and i thank the gentlelady for her comments on responsibility. that's all this side of the aisle has been asking for, to accept the responsibility for their past poor performance in so many different ways. mr. garrett: when you think about it -- i did not yield but i appreciate the gentleman's comment.

so in any other realm of life, personal life, business life, whatever, when you have failed portions of that company and they bail on their performance, it's a response that, the solution to that problem is more people, more authority and more money? that seems to be only the case here in washington, d.c. our nation's capital. when you can have a failed entity like the s.e.c. where they failed in so many areas when they failed with regard to ponzi schemes like the madoff situation where they failed in the area of operating a failed investment bank supervising program. where there was a lack of supervision in the money market fund which led to, for the first time, i guess in the history, the breaking of the reserve money market fund account. they failed in these areas. what is washington's response in at least, what is the response from the other side of the aisle? let's give them more money. the irony here is, they come to the gentleman from -- the gentleman from massachusetts comes to the floor today to enhance their funding but if i

remember correctly, the democrats controled this house from 2007 through 2010. they had all that time to go in an do a complete audit of the agencies. they had those fourees to lock and see where they were making mistakes, how to fix them, improve them and increase their resources. but they failed to do that in the last four years an now in this c.r. they say this is the time to do so. the gentlelady talked about punishing the agencies. they are punishing people. they are punishing the enforcement folks and i would question the gentleman from massachusetts before he put in this language, did you contact any one of those agencies to see what the implications would be on those agencies for cutting to the extent that you are here? i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: thank you. we cut more by multiples than the cuts by the subcommittee

majority. mr. fware rhett: did you contact the agencies? mr. frank: i spoke to the people at the subcommittee and i think the cuts are too deep. mr. barrett: reclaiming my time resm claiming my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: when you come to the floor with an amendment to sea we're going to take money from up with agency, you have a primary responsibility to go to those agencies and ask, what impact will they have? it doesn't matter whether other amendments will come down that have a larger impact. it's incumbent on the gentleman from massachusetts to do his research before he comes to the floor with his amendment. i'm sorry to see he did not. finally as well, he come toths floor with this amendment saying we need to do this action now. don't look back at their past poor performance. let's take the action now. i remind the gentleman who is author of the dodd-frank reform legislation that his own

legislation mandated a study within section 967 to reform the operation of the f.c.c. and it asked to do a study to see how their reform has occurred. why don't we wait for the studies to come out, the information to come out to see whether or not the s.e.c. has changed its performance. even after they've lost their majority, we see the conduct of the s.e.c. and it still continues to fail. even now we see that they are under investigation by the inspector general. why? for allegedly lease more space before receiving funds to do so. they've had a poor track record in the past. unfortunately, in some areas today, i'm sorry to say, they still have a poor track record right now with regard to their finances and who knows where they'll be in the future. now is not the time to say let's throw out more money to them. when we talk about throwing automore money it, hens back to a comment the gentleman made earlier this week.

we were looking at the actions of the s.e.c. and the other agency earlier this week, and the republicans were looking and say, what can we do to honestly reform and make the rule making process and the rules that come out more consistent and proper and be able to perform better in the regulatory climate, their side of the aisle was doing the same thing this week as they are on the floor right now saying the answer to the -- the answer to everything is more money. he said it in committee, he's saying it now. the answer to every single problem. i must tell the american people and the chair it's not more money. it's making sure the agencies perform correctly. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from pennsylvania from the committee is recognized. >> i seek to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: there was a meeting with the other side, they

promised they would go back to an unregulated system. it almost bankrupted the entire country. i want to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from massachusetts and the american public should not be fooled again by people on the other side saying that somehow they're doing this to protect their interest on wall street. mr. frank: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from new jersey asked me a question, i foolishly thought he wanted an answer. i apologize for my false asuppings. the answer is i know that the proposals we have made to reduce the g.s.a. and i.r.s. go too far. i will point out they're only a small percentage of the reductions made by the subcommittee. the problem is under the very restrictive rules we had to choose among certain agencies. my hope is the house will demonstrate its support for increased funding for the s.e.c. and when it gets to the senate, thail have more flexibility and can take it

from elsewhere and we'll see fiscal discipline imposed on some other places. i did not call those agencies because i knew what their answer was, from the ranking member of the subcommittee. they the subcommittee had cut them too deeply. we are trying to make the point that the s.e.c. should be funded. i want to respond to the notion that we always think it's more money. no. we have talked also about reforms. by the way they talk about 2004, they talked about twation, a prior administration, i believe there has been a real change in this administration in the seriousness of the appointments to the s.e.c. and the understanding of what they should do. there's a new director of enforcement, and by the way, disciplinary proceedings, the new chair announced, are now under way on the people who didn't do what they should have done under madoff which is from prior years. yes the s.e.c. has been "less than perfect." but it has a very new set of responsibilities.

and the notion that they can deal with that new set of responsibilities with less money than they had last year comes only from people who are not in favor of the new responsibilities. i understand that. but becoming more efficient doesn't allow you to get into monitoring all the hedge funds that have to register and monitoring derivatives. what we have is an ideological opposition to the form of the -- to reform of the financial system, a premps for keeping the shadow banking system in the chateaus, masking as a fiscal argument. because we can do this in a deficit neutral way. by the s.e.c. will continue to be a profit center. this notion that the answer is always about money, no we don't. if the majority had some improvements to make to the s.e.c. let's see them. i don't remember any being offered by them as amendments when we were doing the financial reform bill. we have worked with mare ray shapiro, we do believe she's making significant improvements. improvements. but the notion that you can