ince this happened. i want to address one other thing he said. he said that our goal is to, quote, knock the republicans off their game. we do not think this is a game. we think 15 million unemployed people is a very serious national crisis and we do not want to play a game. we want to come to an agreement that would create an environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs for the american people. . he mentioned sacred caos. we don't -- cows. we don't think college scholarships are wasteful spending. we don't think that student loans are reckless spending. we don't think that reading teachers and math coaches for our neediest children is wasteful spending. we don't think that job training grants for people who have lost their job is wasteful. we think that cutting those programs wastes jobs in the private sector. that's why we oppose the reckless budget plan, that's why we beseech the majority, let's get to work on putting americans

to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. you know, i stood up and openly said, i have no clue how many jobs have been added, but the million job figure that the gentleman quotes is not a net figure. it's not a net figure. we have lost many, many, many times what we have gained and the net figure means that when you add in what has been added versus what was lost this country's in trouble. and i think the american people understand this, they understood it last november, they understand it now. people are scared, they're scared about their future, they're scared about their job, they're scared about how much gasoline's going to go up, they're scared about whether the e.p.a. is going to come put some more rules and regulations on them, they're scared about what will happen in the long run, with their job and health care. they see the diminishment of

freedom, they see where we are in trouble, not only in our own homes, we're in trouble with our country. they see that we ran a $230 billion deficit last month alone. they see that this administration is incapable of looking at facts and factors and making a realistic choice about now that we understand what's happening, what are we going to do when we're in trouble. the republican party is here and we are not going to be knocked off our game, we are going to go and try and save as many jobs as we can from the onerous rules and regulation, the excessive taxation and perhaps worst of all the inattention to try and create a better circumstance for this country. so, that's what we're going to do. we're going to go after it, we're going to repeal this obamacare, we're going to stay after the rules and regulations and we're going to make sure that the middle class in this country has the chance to save

the job that they have rather than diminishing it. you have seen, mr. speaker, all across this country the states who are in the most trouble have top to bottom democrat-controlled legislatures as well as democrat governors. those states are unwilling to make tough choices, they're unwilling to do the things which would say no to constituencies who are special interests. today the republicans are on the floor of the house of representatives and we're saying not only no to special interests, but what we're trying to say is that we need to use common sense and balance. and i recognize 14 years ago when i came up here common sense is not common in washington. but today part that have common sense takes place with we're going to read the bills before we vote on them, we're going to go through regular order, we're going to relook at the things which have been passed which diminish jobs and which harm our economy and those are the things

which we're on the floor to get done today. mr. speaker, i'm proud of our republican majority, i'm proud of our speak who are is from the great state of ohio, who understands himself personally, because of the state where he's from, that the state of ohio is in need of leadership, real leadership in washington, just as the rest of the country. and so the republican party stands on the floor of the house today, we are about jobs, we're about reducing wasteful washington spending and we're going to stand for common sense. we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'd like to yield myself one minute before i yield four minutes to mr. cummings. simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that these bills are unneeded. let me just quote a little bit from the "dallas morning news." home prices down 3.6% in december, 40% of home sales in north texas foreclosed and short sale homes, dallas housing

analyst said no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market. they're going to receive $135 million through assistance unless all these bills die and i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of "the dallas morning news" into the record. i mention dallas because that is the district of my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i wanted to point out that there's pain at home. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and as i said on the floor this morning and listened to my esteemed colleagues on the other side, i must tell you that i am a bit upset. when he talks about common sense and balance. these are two words, the common sense and balance is something

think a talk about all the time as the ranking member of the government reform and oversight committee, we talk about common sense. we talk about balance. and part of common sense and balance is trying to make sure our children are educated. part of common sense and balance is making sure that my neighbor who just died of cancer and i would have to go into my pocket over and over again to give him the money to supplement his chemo, common sense and balance. common sense and balance is trying to make sure that people have jobs when i appear at my jobs fair in a few weeks it will be just like last year when 9,000 people would show up at 6:00 in the morning and circle around buildings.

common sense and balance so that the students at morgan state university will not have their pell grants reduced by $800 when they're struggling right now, they're working, trying to get a job if they can get one, and working, doing the best that they can and it is their turn, common sense and balance, that we don't cut them off. and so as i listen, you know, i think about all of this and i'm trying to figure out how does the american people make common sense -- get common sense and balance out of what is going on in this house? now, with regard to, i heard my friend talk about regulations, just this morning in a hearing that we had in government reform , we had all of these expects from corporations come and talk about how they wanted to get rid

of, quote, job-killing regulations. every one of them agreed with me that regulations are important because they protect the health, welfare and safety of people. and as i told them this morning, i said to them, and i was very clear, i said, when i was a young student, a high school student, and i would go to bethlehem steel every summer to work, when i blew my knows after being there for an hour -- nose after being there for an hour, when the mucus came out it was black. it was regulation that addressed that and there were men who had been there 40 years who were breathing that every day, eight hours a day. and many of them died early. common sense and regular late, -- and regulate, common sense and balance. common sense and balance and i said to my constituents and i said it to them at a town hall meeting this week.

i said, i wish the congress would address issues like we did with our family problems. if you've got a family problem and you've got a daughter or a son who wants to go to college, maybe go to an expensive college , you don't say to them, you're not going to go to college, you find a way to, yeah, cut back on some things. you don't cut back on everything, you don't say to that child, you cannot go to school. because it's now their turn. you just don't turn your back on them. you don't cut off people's jobs and their training when they're trying to be retrained, when that father who has lost his job is trying to be retrained. i ask for an additional three minutes. can we get it? ms. slaughter: may i inquire how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: absolutely, i yield three more minutes to the gentleman. mr. cummings: and so, you know, common sense and balance. i rise today in strong opposition to this rule which

provides for the consideration of h.r. 836, a bill that seeks to kill emergency home owners, the homeowner loan assistance program. this program was created to provide limited low-cost loans to enable borrowers who are unemployed through no fault of their own, through no fault of their own, or who face debilitating medical costs, and by the way, a lot of people say that they will never face these medical costs, well, all of us are the walking wounded. all of us will face difficult problems. the question is, will america be the america that it's always been? we do not get our authority by might. we get it by the way we treat each other. and so these folks are going through some difficult times, these are the same people that this loan program is about, these are the same people that showed up time after time, sitting in the front row of something i call my foreclosure

prevention program, with tears running down their faces. many of them have never missed a mortgage payment, have worked hard every day and have done everything that was required of them. these are our american neighbors, they are the american neighbors that sit in ohio, they're the ones who are in california and new york. those are our neighbors and they are in a time of need and we're talking about a $1 billion program to try to help people as they're struggling, trying to get up after an economy, by the way, where regulation failed them. they find themselves in these difficulties, in many instances, buzz people were not regulating -- because people were not regulating properly. and, yes, it upsets me. because i go back to a district every night, 40 miles away from here, where people are sad and there are areas in my district where you probably got 25% unemployment.

so i care about the jobs. they're important to me. i care about people living and staying in their homes. and so if anything was said by the november elections, it was about we need to sit down and get together and work through people's problems like any family would address family problems. and we must be about the business of making sure that we do those things to have a future . i don't want any child in america, i don't care whether he's in your district, mr. speaker, or anybody else's district, i want every child to have an opportunity, i want the same opportunities for your children, mr. speaker, that i want for mine. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to inform the gentlewoman from new york that i have no additional speakers and if she is done, we could let her go ahead and offer her close and then i will finish it out.

ms. slaughter: i have someone on the way. she's not here. and since you are ready to close -- mr. sessions: i'm sorry, is the gentlewoman wishing to proceed at this time on her close or should i reserve my time? ms. slaughter: i want to wait until she arrives. mr. sessions: i reserve the balance of my time. ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. sessions: the gentlewoman has now yielded back her time and thank you very much. mr. speaker, the facts of this case state very clearly that this nation is being overrun, it's been overrun by too much taxing, too much borrowing, too much spending. just last month we hit a record deficit, $223 billion. this is unacceptable. the status quo of where we're moving is not acceptable. with the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment as we have heard the stories hovering across the country right at 9% and much higher in many areas of the country, including congressional districts that are hurt even

more and i understand this because those who first lose their job many times are disabled people and i understand disabled people and their plight that they have also and it is sad and it hurts us as members of congress and it hurts the american people. the american people asked congress to rein in the spending, to do something about jobs and that's what we're doing. we're not making excuses, we're getting the job accomplished. eliminating this program will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. by gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful washington government spending, these handouts that the private sector could utilize and gain confidence in the economy and start doing itself, we could begin investing in jobs and a brighter economic future. i apraud my friend from texas -- i applaud my friend from texas,

mr. hensarling, in bringing this legislation and to the chair of the rules committee, the young chairman, david dreier, favorite son from california, david comes here and so ably runs our rules committee for us, we thank them for providing an open and transparent process. i encourage a yes vote on the rule and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee of rules, i call up house resolution 150 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 14, house resolution 150. resolved, that at anytime after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 830, to rescind the unobligated funding for the f.h.a. refinance program and to terminate the program. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a stub tute now printed in the bill. each section of the committee of the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee nature -- in the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be waived. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18 in a daily issue dated march 9, 2011, or earlier. and except pro forma amendments for purposes of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member

who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house for any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only. this resolution provides for a modified open rule for the

consideration of h.r. 830, the f.h.a. finance program termination act. provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services and for consideration of any amendments proposed by members that conform to the house rule in which were preprinted in the congressional record no later than march 9 of today -- yesterday. today. mr. speaker, i'm also pleased to stand before the house today and support this rule and the underlying legislation, h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination act. i appreciate the hard work of the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee, mr. bachus, as well as the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dole, in creating -- helping control the out-of-control spending.

the f.h.a. was to help the borrowers who for whatever reason found themselves in mortgage debt and unable to pay their mortgage. the 111th congress passed tarp, which was enable -- the 110th congress passed tarp which thereby effectively allowed lenders to pass mortgages through f.h.a. onto the backs of taxpayers in the case of a likely default. the $8 billion in tarp funds was originally identified for this new expansive program. while no one likes to see homeowners in distress and at risk of losing their homes, the fact of the matter is this program, no matter how well-intentioned, is expensive and also proven to be a woefully ineffective program at its best. originally was asserted by the administration, this program would allow up to 1 1/2 million homeowners, or as some reports in the papers, 3 1/2 million to

four million homeowners, in case of ultimate default. however, mr. speaker, there are several problems with this new mortgage bailout program. first, in some and perhaps in many cases this program would subsidize irresponsible lenders and borrowers and insulate them from the consequences of bad choices and in some cases intentionally speculative financial choices that was made during the housing boom and thus shifting the economic impact of those bad choices and decisions onto the backs of responsible homeowners and to taxpayers. this is troubling for this should not be the role of the federal government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace while homeownership in this country is certainly to be encouraged, this program is exactly the wrong way to go about it. the program basically tells the lender, don't worry, it's ok. we'll bail you out of your predicament so you don't have to feel any of the economic consequences of your actions. program tells borrowers, so

what if you took the maximum loan and got the most expensive house you could buy even though it was hiley unlikely you could pay those prices in the future. we'll shift all the costs onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayers. that's apparently where the buck stops in this program. it stops on the back of already burden taxpayers. and a nation that itself is $14 trillion underwater in a crushing and unprecedented debt. second, it appears that in spite of the urgent housing crisis, this so-called emergency program to bail out underwater mortgages hasn't actually helped anyone. according to the department of housing and urban development statistics as of february 3, only 44 refinancing applications have been processed by the agency. that's 44 homeowners out of the potentially three million to four million as originally asserted by the program's

sponsors. mr. lamar woolly, a spokesman for h.u.d., was quoted in the national journal daily article saying the department has not spent any of the money of the f.h.a. program. even the special inspector general for the troubled assets relief program testified before the financial services committee last week that it was somewhat shameful how the administration has mishandled this program. those are his words, not mine. and finally the f.h.a. administer stevens also testified before that committee last week that these new loans may perform worse than refinance loans that were not previously underwater. neereds, mr. stevens' comment indicate that it is far less likely to be repaid, which will weaken the f.h.a. insurance loan, which will hurt homeowners and exposing them to a higher risk. this program privatizes profits, socializes losses.

this program appears to be built on a misguided economic principle of income redistribution, leaving the future to be left with interest. in testimony before the rules committee yesterday, it was mentioned that the private sector, the private mortgage industry has on its own and without any interference by the federal government worked with turbled borrowers to refinance over three million loans in order to keep these homes from foreclosure. so there clearly appears to be a far more effective private sector solution to this crisis than to inject a layer of federal government regulation and spending through this expensive program. we must have the courage to admit when a program is ineffective or too expensive or based on wrong-headed principles of subsidizing personal greed and irresponsibility that with our nation underwater, to terminate this expensive and ineffective program is a step in the right direction. it's a good and fair rule that opens up for anyone to have access to this bill and a good

underlying bill, and i urge their adoption. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from utah for the time. mr. speaker, now more than ever it's critical that we focus our efforts on creating jobs, continuing to stabilize our economy in the housing market. i'm happy to say there's some good news on that front. just last month, mr. speaker, it was reported we added 192,000 jobs, an that unemployment dipped below 9% for the first time in almost two years. we're talking about private sector jobs. this was due in part to the recovery efforts that were passed in the 111th congress and signed by the president. now, however, instead of building on the successes of the previous congress and introducing legislation to continue this economic growth, my colleagues were seeking to pull the plug and return us to policies that got us into this economic mess. instead of talking about on the

floor of the house creating jobs, republican leadership is focused on repealing the patient bill of rights, passing h.r. 1, a spending bill that chairman bernanke stated will kill over 200,000 jobs over the next 10 years and removing critical support for homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages in this tough economic time. h.r. 830 is more of the same. at a time when housing markets are beginning to show signs of life, signs of recovery, my republican colleagues want to eliminate perhaps to keep families in their home and protect communities from the crippling consequences of foreclosures. democrats want to empower homeowners to get their debts under control, not undermine our economic recovery for political game. it's critical to preserve the american dream by keeping families in their home and out of shelters and unemployment lines and preserving the integrity of neighborhoods that suffer when homes are foreclosured upon. refeeling the f.h.a. refinance program would empower collection agencies and

municipal eviction squads rather than empower hardworking american families who are suffering in this difficult economic climate or victims of lenders that created financial products through the housing crisis that led to reckless spending. middle-class americans hurt by this bill are exactly the people we should be protecting in this congress as we start to build a more stronger and stable economic future for our country. instead, this house raised their taxes by passage of h.r. 4 and now they're threatening to remove families from their homes. mr. speaker, we all agree this nation needs to get their fiscal house in order and to resolve the housing crisis, but this bill, outrile repeal of the f.h.a., is not the right approach. we need to create jobs and ensure that our banks remain

stable. a good indication of the housing market is the amount of delinquencies or the number of mortgages that are at least 30 days late on their payment. according to the chief economist for the mortgage bankers association, the latest delinquency numbers represents significant across the board decreases of delinquencies in the u.s. moreover, loans over 30 days late are down. the short refinance option, which the republicans are trying to eliminate, we have begun to stabilize the housing market. these numbers could he inside with signs of recovery -- coinside with signs of recovery. mortgages worth more than their homes can refinance through a more affordable mortgage. this program allows lenders to write down at least 10% of the outstanding principal to bring payments down to affordable levels. according to core logic

december of last year, more than 10% were underwater. we're no stranger to that in boulder county, colorado. this imposes hardships in our economy. we cannot risk another housing crisis and banking crisis by removing programs that help keep families in their home and keep the homes out of foreclosure. my friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that this program is fallen short of its original goals. i agree that this program is not perfect. instead of scrapping it entirely we should build on success and figure out how best to resolve the housing crisis that this nation faces. we need to mend it, not end it. until just recently, many homeowners were not able to partake in this program. borrowers had difficulty finding banks that had the capacity to refinance under the stringent guidelines of this program. but recently we've had some good news. two major banks, who underwrite

many loans in colorado, wells fargo and allied financial, will allow underwater borrowers to refinance under this f.h.a. program. by adding these two giants into the mix, the f.h.a. refinance program will begin to grow and prosper while it continues to add more banks and increase accessibility. terminating this project now would result in many families losing their homes and would be a tragic mistake. mr. speaker, banks support this program, homeowners support this program. it's critical that we all allow this program the chance to succeed rather than make arbitrary budget cuts, rather than help struggling families. this program does not bail out individuals who made mistakes, who made poor decisions, who bought houses they couldn't afford or are looking for a way out of foreclosure. it's not a program to protect vacation homes or megamansions. it's not a free line of credit for anybody. this program is a helping hand to the many hardworking americans who are in a difficult spot, individual ws good credit

scores who can help themselves and the banks who hold their mortgages by participating in this program. my home state of colorado, almost 20% of all homes are in negative equity. this means about 220,000 families in colorado are stuck with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. according to "the new york times" ending this program would squander an important chance to prevent foreclosures. in addition, the chief economist for core logics stated that equity is a primary factor holding back the mortgage market. with so many families under water, it would be irresponsible of us to eliminate this program and unnecessarily put more americans at risk of foreclosure. mr. speaker, today not a single mortgage that has been refinanced through this program has gone into default. let me repeat. that not a single mortgage that has been refinanced through this program has gone into default. the majority of costs associated with this program occur if these f.h.a.-insured mortgages go into

default. there's no way my friends on the other side of the aisle can call this a waste of taxpayer money because it is yet to spend $1 of the funds that were allocated. the dodd-frank walt street reform and consumer protection act requires all unused funds from the program to be returned to the treasury. by strengthening this program, improving this program, we can continue to keep americans in their home at a minimal cost to taxpayers. mr. speaker, we must improve this program so we can keep families from defaulting, strengthen the economy, save taxpayer dollars and stabilize the real estate market. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, before i yield time i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend my remarks -- revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you. with this i'm very pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill who has found a program that flat out doesn't work, the gentleman from illinois, mr.

dold. mr. dold: i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding and i want to take this opportunity to outline what this program's been. this is undeniable that this program has been what anybody that looks at it can say is a failure. it doesn't work for the homeowners, it doesn't work for hardworking american families that are paying taxes and it doesn't work for future generations. children and grandchildren that will certainly be burdened with an enormous debt that the government continues to heap on them. if i can just go back, as a small business owner i employ just under 100 people. for me that's 100 families. and i do stay wake at night trying to make sure that these families have the opportunity to put food on the table, provide an education for their children. but one of the things i do and have learned in business is the fact that you have to recognize when something's not working.

this is an instance of something not working in our government. let's just go back down to just the raw basics. let's look at the facts of this program. while well intentioned the program facts are simply these, we have obligated $8.12 billion out of tarp funds, obligated $8.12 billion, we have dispersed $50 million, $50 million has been dispersed and yet in the downturn we have seen that what should have been $1.5 million is what the administration is saying, the number of homeowners that are coming into this program, we've seen 245 applicants in the last six months. 245 applicants and out of the $50 million dispersed we have received 44 loan modifications. 44. just doing the quick back of the nfl math, $1.1 million per

refinanced loan. the average loan is $300,000. now i have to tell you, for the american public, for future generations, that is not a good use of the american taxpayer dollar. we can and must do better. there is no question that there are good and laudable programs out there that we need to be financing. this is not one of them. let me just say again that this doesn't work for the homeowners themselves. why is there so few in a downturn? and i would argue because many of the homeowners recognize that this is not a program that they want to be involved with. you can't be engaged in this program if you first of all have any equity in your home. you can't be engaged in this program if you're delipping went on any one of your mortgage payments. there are a whole litany of things that prevent you from getting into this program.

but if you do get into this program your credit will be decimated for years to come. the average credit score according to the experts is 711. well, it won't be 711 for long. as soon as they take this and get access to this program. the question is will it reduce your monthly payments? well, after going through this, the homeowners actually have to pay the closing costs, then they have to actually purchase private homeowners insurance. the mortgage insurance, the chances of them actually reducing their payments is actually not that great. so they go through the hops -- hoops to not reduce their monthly payment. again, this is not a win for the homeowners. it's also not a win for the tax paying american families. $8.12 billion obligated. we have to go in and look this evening, go in when you tuck your children in bed this evening and ask yourself, are we doing this, is this the best interest of the future

generations? is this the best use of our taxpayer funds? we have to be truthful with the american taxpayer, we have to be truthful with the american people. that's what you sent us here to washington to do is to look you in the eye and be truthful with you. this is a program that doesn't work, that doesn't mean that we don't want to help out homeowners, we do not want to be wasteful with your tax dollars. we have to go back to the drawing board because right now this absolutely is a program that by all accounts has failed. so when you look at your children and grand children, know that we -- grandchildren, know that we can and must do better. i think that we have an obligation when we look at the american family. is this the best use of our resources? is this the best that we can do? i don't believe that it is. as a small business owner we

make mistakes, we're going to make mistakes here in this congress. how will we be judged? i hope we're judged on the fact that we can admit when we've made mistakes and try to then go back to the drawing board. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a strong look at this, to know when something is not working, we have refinanced literally millions of mortgages in other vehicles. out of the six months that this has been alive, 44, 44 mortgages at the tune of about $1.1 million for the dispersed funds into this f.h.a. refinance program. so with that i urge my colleagues to certainly support 80 and support this rule and i yield back to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. andrews: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from colorado for yielding. mr. speaker, i would venture to say that if we went to a mall this afternoon in our country or a diner or some other place where people gather, maybe people waiting outside of school to pick up their kids, and said, what would you like to see congress work on this week? i think most of them would say, why don't you work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs? because there are 15 million uninsured -- unemployed americans that we need to put people back to work. others of them might say, i'm concerned about educating my children. i have college-age children and i'm looking at the cost of paying for college education and i'm extremely concerned i won't

be able to educate my kids. others might say, i'm worried about my parent, my mom or my dad live with me and their prescription costs are going through the roof and it's a major problem for them. i'm worried about health care for my parents. i'm sure there are some, there are many who would say that they're worried about wasteful government spending, that they do want to see this government not waste their hard-earned money. and i guess there are some who would say there's this mortgage program that's been running for a couple of months and i really think that you should do something about that and get rid of it. there are some and there will be debate about the merits of doing. that but if we look at the record of this majority, 10 weeks of hearing those concerns and they are 0-10. 10 weeks, not one bill about jobs, not one idea about jobs, not one effort to create an environment that small businesses and entrepreneurs would thrive in and this is week

number 10 and not a word. earlier in the last debate, the gentleman from texas said that the republican job plan was to repeal the health care bill. that was their jobs plan. well, that ignores the reality that since the health care plan was enacted about 1.4 million jobs have been added to the economy. almost 1/4 of a million of them in health care itself. that's their jobs plan. their education plan is to go to a woman who's working part time, raising children and trying to go to school and reduce her college scholarship by $845 so that she probably has to either stretch the years in which she's in school or throw in the towel on her education altogether. their education plan is to take 10,000 reading teachers out of america's classrooms, 7,000 special education teachers out of america's classrooms, that's

thank doesn't sound like a very educated -- that doesn't sound like a very educated education plan to me. and frankly as far as the price of health care is concerned, if they succeed in repealing the health care bill, i would ask for one more minute. if they -- i thank the gentleman. if they succeed in repealing the health care bill, the price of prescription drugs will go up for people's moms and dads, not down. jobs, 10 weeks, no plan. the cost of education, 10 weeks, a bad plan that raises the price of education. the prescription drug problem for seniors, 10 weeks, a bad plan that raises the price of prescriptions for seniors. a lot of americans would probably say they don't like the idea of paying $4 or $5 for gasoline at the gas pump. no plan from the majority.

so we'll have a debate on the merits of this bill but with all due respect, mr. speaker, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. the american people want us to work together to create jobs, make education affordable, make health care affordable particularly for senior citizens in this country, the majority is 0-10. let's make this week the one that we break their losing streak and work for the people of our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the rule and in support of the f.h.a. refinancing bill that is one of four bills that will be on the floor coming out of the financial services committee on which i serve that is terminating programs that will

literally help people stay in their homes and help in the economic recovery. my republican colleagues are proposing to terminate these programs but they are not putting forward any alternative to help these people stay in their homes. and there are nearly 11 million homes that are under water now, meaning that the value of the home is less than the loan the homeowner has taken out to pay for it and seven million homes have been foreclosed on so far and another three million are expected to be foreclosed on between 2012. and this vote will be on continuing the refinancing of f.h.a. loans that will keep people in these homes, keep these homes filled so that they're not eye sores or pulling down the economy in certain areas. last week city bank, wells and g-mack came forward and say they intend to participate in this

program, it's a voluntary program, and these are three of the largest mortgage companies in the country and they're participation will certainly broaden the reach to help more people. the program allows borrowers to write down at least 10%, to reduce the debt burden, then standard f.h.a. loan terms will apply as with all f.h.a.-insured loans. the property must be the homeowners' primary residence and the borrower must meet the f.h.a.'s full documentation and they must be current on their mortgage. with declining home values, borrowers are caught in mortgages that can no longer -- they can no longer afford because their rates have reset or because their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity in their homes and they're making their payments but barely. this is an important program -- thank you so much, states across the country have this challenge and almost 11 mortgages are

under water or 22% of all outstanding mortgages. and by passing this bill we are saying that we have no solutions for these homeowners, it is not good for the homeowner, not good for the economy and certainly not good for our country. president obama has issued a statement that he will oppose the termination of this program and indicating that he will veto it when it gets to his desk but i urge my colleagues to join me in vetoing this rule and vetoing this underlying bill to help our economy and to help homeowners stay in their homes. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i appreciate listening to the gentlewoman's discussion of the bill at hand and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: at the end of this debate i will ask my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and vote yes on the price gouging prevention act. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from for yielding. i rise in opposition to the previous question and against the rule. not only is the majority passing up another opportunity to finally put forward a bill to create jobs, they are using the underlying bills to make it even tougher on american families, in particular, tougher on middle-class homeowners. further, it's clear, as mr. andrews suggested, that republicans have no plan for rapidly soaring gas prices, another threat to middle-class families and to our economy. the department of energy forecast gas prices could spike to a national average of more than $4 a gallon for regular this summer. that's about 50 cents higher per gallon than tuesday's national average of $3.50. in my district of eastern long island, regular unleaded has already surged by 34 cents in the last month alone and now averages $3.74 a gallon. in the east end of my district it's already well over $4 a gallon and a.a.a. projects gas

prices could reach 50 cents higher per gallon by memorial day. the republican response, silence. instead, we will vote today to kill a mortgage assistance program for the struggling homeowners and the recently unemployed. that is why my colleagues, congressman mcnerney, walz and mcintyre and i have joined in introducing the federal price gouging act to take on this new threat to our economy. our legislation gives the f.t.c. the authority to investigate, enforce and then to punish price gouging and market manipulation. i urge my colleagues to join us in standing up to the oil companies and show hardworking americans that we are in their corner. vote against the previous question which if defeated will allow the house to consider this important price gouging measure. we need to show that their interests are paramount and not the oil companies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire

if the gentleman has any remaining speakers? mr. bishop: apparently not. mr. polis: ok. i am the last speaker on our side. mr. speaker, while it's been over two months and we have yet to pass a single legislation that promotes job growth in this country, my friends across the aisle repeatedly speak of their mandate to create jobs and yet instead of listening, the republicans have focused on bills that will hurt the middle class, disempower the middle class. in this case, force more americans into losing their home. the republicans have been talking about repeal and replace, and yet so far all we've seen is repeal, no replace. it's not as if there aren't many viable alternatives when we discuss health care reform. there was discussion, well, what do we do with people that have pre-existing conditions? there was an enormous leap of faith to repeal. oh, we'll get to it someday. we're hearing the same thing here. it's not if these viable alternatives, the replace part are a mystery. in fact, in the 111th congress

i introduced h.r. 4877 which would have provided a capital gains tax waiver for private community and investment banks, giving them capital to lend to homeowners who needed to be rescued, to shore up their balances, to encourage primary offerings of equity in the private sector. my bill would allow americans to invest directly. i will soon -- i hope there is a replace component to what we actually do need to do as a country to mitigate the housing crisis and stabilize real estate. republicans and democrats alike should be interested in free market alternatives that don't just reduce taxes to revitalize the housing market but can eliminate them. mr. speaker, instead of scrapping this program, we need to have a solid response to the housing crisis in this country. we welcome suggestions from

republicans, independents, all americans to improve this program, to make it accessible to more families. no program is a perfect one when it's created and the f.h.a. refinance program has shown they can successfully keep families in their home when given a chance. our recovery is just beginning and is fragile. we need to provide stability and predictability with regard to the federal policies in this area. this is just another example of a broken promise, a repeal without a replace and is leaving what is fundamentally a critical public policy issue which democrats and republicans agree, namely the stabilization of the housing market, without any answer. and even a partially correct answer, mr. speaker, is better than no answer. so i have hoped that the work proceeds to replace, but in the meantime, repealing without knowing what comes next is an enormously leap of faith that

could cost too many middle-class families their home which is why i urge a no vote on the rule. and, mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 964, the federal price gouging prevention act. this bill, introduced today, by my colleague, mr. bishop of new york, who we just heard from, will crack down on gas price gouging during international criseses, preventing sellers from taking unfair advantages of circumstances with prices that are on conscionably high. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can take up a bill that will help rather than hurt struggling families and i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah.

mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing i close with some trendation as i've heard the debate today about continuing resolutions, help teachers, gas prices and capital gains. but let me risk something and actually talk about the bill at hand. first of all, it's an impeccablely good rule which will allow an open amendment process. not a got you amendment but a real amendment to this bill. it's a good way of handling the situation on the floor. very proud of the rules committee for presenting this type of rule. you heard from the sponsor of this piece of legislation the details that are required of this particular program which discourages those from actually using it. so that the c.b.o. would say that if we continue this program, which is not attracting any takers, it would cost the federal government at least $175 million in failed

mortgages, defaulted mortgages. in addition, this is one of the programs that we're talking about mandatory spending, not discretionary, but actually doing something about mandatory spending. and in the terms of the inspector general, this surrogate program has failed. we can do better, and as a government we ought to do better than this poorly planned, poorly executed, underutilized and very, very expensive failed program. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause

9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 150, if ordered, and on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. the first vote is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

the house will be in order. the chair will ask members to take seats.

the chair would ask members to clear the aisle. do a moment of silence here. the speaker pro tempore: members, the house will come to order. the chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families and of all who serve in our armed forces and their families.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. >> madam speaker. madam speaker. i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to request a recorded vote. a the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record eir votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

the speaker pro tempore: on this question the yeas are 2326. the nays are 91. one member voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

pursuant to 15 u.s.c. 1024-a and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the joint economic committee. the clerk: mr. hinchey of new york, mrs. maloney of new york, miss loretta sanchez of california, mr. cummings of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., march 9, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable jerry lewis, the honorable mac thornberry, the honorable fred upton, the honorable andy harris, and the honorable frank r. wolf to act as speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions through the remainder of the 112th congress. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the appointments are approved. the chair will general tain request for one-minute speeches -- entertain request for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. you may proceed. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, what happened to the rule of law? last week the u.s. justice department announced that president obama would stop defending the defense of marriage act. i remind you that the president took an oath -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. you may proceed. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, what

happened to the rule of law? last week the u.s. justice department announced that president obama would stop defending the defense of marriage act. i remind you that the president took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. the defense of marriage act became law in september, 1996, to solidify the traditional marriage within federal law. the president now abandons the defense of this law claiming that no reasonable argument can be made to demonstrate that the law is constitutional. a physical position many legal scholars have ridiculed while pointing to a wealth of legal authority, including relevant federal case law. so it appears that not only is the president substituting his power and judgment for that of the congress when it comes to a number of bold administrative measures to write law from the oval office, but he is now

substituting his power and judgment for the supreme court. a pierce to me that president obama sees no need for the other two branches of the federal government. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the -- mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. nadler: thank you. mr. speaker, i hadn't planned to speak except i must rebut the nonsense we just heard from the previous speaker. the president of the united states has a duty to faithfully execute the laws. he is doing so. he has said though he doesn't agree with the defense of marriage act, and he doesn't think it's constitutional, unlike president bush who refused to implement and to enforce laws he thought were unconstitutional, president obama is enforcing the law. he's simply not urging it in court. that's his prerogative and his duty if he doesn't think it's constitutional. the fact of the matter is given the supreme court precedents on the standards to use in

defending a law that discriminates against people, he had no choice because when you have a group that's discriminated against, that is not politically powerful not to protect itself, and that is inherent in its characteristics, the president says you must not hide in scrutiny. that's what the president is urging in court. he's enforcing the law and doing what he has to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? wroid. -- without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the single largest loss of members of the national guard since world war ii. 10 years ago last week the virginia beach community and really the entire country suffered a tremendous loss of 21 national guard members perished when their helicopter crashed in southern georgia during a

rainstorm. 18 of those members were from camp pendleton's unit in virginia beach. it included my good friend paul cramer. my constituent, elaine, reached out to our office to share her brother's story. and richard's honorable legacy lives on today as does every guardsman who perished on that flight. my thoughts and prayers are with the families today on this somber anniversary. the selfless service of their loved ones and their service to our country will not be forgotten. may god bless them and comfort them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: thank you, mr. speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: today a bipartisan coalition of members of congress have introduced -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order, please. mr. kucinich: today a bipartisan coalition of members of congress have introduced a privileged resolution calling for a vote in this congress to end the war in afghanistan. more than 60% of the american people want us out of there. this war is already approaching a cost of a half a trillion dollars. we have americans who are losing their jobs, their wages are being knocked down, we have americans losing their homes, losing their retirement security. they can't send their kids to colleges they want. and we are spending all this money on a war that is a waste of time, money, blood, and treasure to try to prop up a corrupt regime in afghanistan. now, our occupation over there is fueled an insurgency. it's time for this congress to take the constitutional responsibilities under article 1, section 8. we haven't done that with respect to afghanistan. it's time for us to do that. let's have an up or down vote. that's what this resolution is about. i urge all members of congress

to consider supporting the privileged resolution that ends the war in afghanistan. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston enclose to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kingston: thank you, mr. speaker. what is the budget battle about? it is about our country, it is about our kids, and it is about our freedom. imagine if you were borrowing 40 cents for every $1 that you spent in your household, you would change your purchasing habit. that's what this battle is about. do we want to leave to our children a legacy of billions and billions of dollars in debt which they owe to china? that's what this budget battle is about. this is very important stuff. we have to put the politics of spend and positioning and about being democrats and republicans, we have to put that aside. we've got to do what's best for

the next generation. not the best election. we need to come together and come up with commonsense solutions because you and i as americans, we can do better, and we deserve to give our children better than what we are doing right now. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. hurt of virginia for today and mr. reichert of washington for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, today we want to talk about jobs. the people in my district, the 10th congressional district of california and concord, antioch, pittsburgh, fairfield, livermore, they want jobs. they want to go to work. they want this government to create jobs. we are now in the 10th week of the new majority, the republican majority, and thus far there has not been one significant useful job bill brought to the floor. instead, we had a c.r. brought

to the floor that in all probability will lose and cost america $700,000 jobs. that's what the c.r., the first piece of legislation, introduced by the republicans would do. 700,000 jobs. it's all across the board, construction jobs, research, manufacturing jobs, education. we just heard one fell stand up here on the floor and said he was worried about his children. he should be because the bill that he voted for less than 10 days ago would destroy thousands and thousands of teaching jobs across this nation, including 218,000 young children that will not be in the head start frame.

joining me is betty sutton. ms. sutton, if you tell us what's going on in ohio and how you see these issues. ms. sutton: well, i thank the gentleman and thank you for your leadership. boy, that poster says a lot. g.o.p. continuing resolution destroys 700,000-plus jobs, possibly yours. and where did we get that number? before we get to ohio, where did we get that number? we got that number from a number of places. ben bernanke said that the plan would cut -- cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. the g.o.p.'s c.r., according to goldman sachs, would reduce economic growth by 2% and cause the unemployment rate to increase. and a study by the international monetary fund concluded that the idea that fiscal austerity promotes

economic prosperity in the short term does not show support in the data. so we have 300 economists, including two nobel laurettes says that the short sided budget cuts -- the next generation of scientific and technological advances would threaten economic competitiveness as well as recovery. so that's where we are. despite all of this fore warning of where this path will lead us to we still see a continuing resolution that indicates we are going to lose 700,000-plus jobs. in the state of ohio -- i'm sure that a number of people, most of the people out there have seen at the state house we're witnessing democracy in action, at least from the outside, because for a while there the state house doors were closed when all of the workers in fair minded ohio

descended on the steps of our state capitol of what the governor is trying to do to our public state workers. under the guise to our deficit, an attack on workers' is being waged across this nation from wisconsin to ohio to the floor of congress where we've seen attack after attack. and really the -- it's really a sad thing because we all know we should be focused, and the other side should join us in focusing on priority one which is putting people back to work. in ohio the key to our budget problem is more people working than you have revenue to pay for the public services and the public sector employees who helped to make our world furn. can you imagine the idea? it was not the workers in wisconsin or ohio or across

this country that drove our economy off the cliff. it was not those teachers or those firefighters who rush into those burning buildings when we run out of them. it was not the police officers who are out there on our streets protecting us and keeping our communities safe. it was not the workers. the workers are not the problem. they are part of the solution of where we need to go. but the bottom line is we need to be focused on creating jobs, and it's just amazing that not only are our friends across the aisle, the republicans, not interested in focusing on that. 10 weeks on the job, zero jobs. they're actually looking at cutting those people who do have jobs, their rights, and it's just fundamentally unfair and it's counterproductive. we all know that we need to trim back our budget, but we should always be willing to

trim back the budget but only in engaging in smart cuts. not just indiscriminate cuts. what happens when a person doesn't have a job? what happens when 700,000 people don't have a job? do we think they just disappear, that there are no costs to our government? not the loss to the dignity and the loss of opportunity, everything that our country stands for, having a chance to make a way for your family, to feed your family and take care of your family. it's a crazy idea to say that we can make cuts that cut hundreds of thousands of jobs and somehow that will lead us to prosperity. mr. garamendi: and reduce the budget deficit. i'm wondering about our president in his state of the union said that we have to outeducate, outsearch, outmanufacturing, outbuild the

-- outresearch, outmanufacturing, outbuild the rest of the world. the significant piece of legislation the republicans had going in a different direction. it reduces education. thousands -- i guess maybe 20,000, 30,000 teachers will lose jobs. the thing that really struck me in talking to my colleague from maryland about this, the research. in the area of research which are tomorrow's jobs, what does this c.r. do, what does the republican caucus want to do? they want to cut back on the research, and so we're looking at a significant number -- i think it's over 5,000 key researchers. could you share with us your experience and your knowledge, because you are in one of the research centers, our colleague from maryland? ms. edwards: well, i want to thank you, mr. garamendi, for bringing this to our attention. i have been thinking a lot about the role of research and

development to the 21st century and to 21st century job creation. in fact, i've introduced, along with you and a number of our colleagues, my colleague from maryland, republican roscoe bartlett, h.r. 689, which is the 21st century reinvestment act, and the goal is to create -- to invest in research and development, expand our tax credit for research and development, make it permanent and then link it to manufacturing. and here's been my experience. in the fourth congressional district we are home to some of the most fantastic research innovation that's happening anywhere in the country. that's true all across the country. but this sort of robust and innovative firms -- many of them are small firms and they can't afford to front load r&d to create manufacturing jobs, but they need the government to have a tax policy that actually encourages that. so i'm all in favor of a tax policy that encourages the positive things that we want. research and development, job

creation, manufacturing, and instead what did we get out of -- out of congress? we got a tax bill that rewards the top 2% with tax breaks that will never be put back in the economy. we've had 10 weeks of a republican revolution here in the house of representatives that has created zero jobs, and in fact a continuing resolution out of this house of representatives, this republican-led house of representatives that would destroy 700,000 jobs. it's as if we're saying, no, we really don't like the 21st century. we want to go back to the 19th and 20th century, and that's not how you rebuild a manufacturing base in this country. and so i've actually been struck traveling throughout my congressional district at small firms like lab tech up in gathersburg, maryland, which is doing some innovative r&d, research and development, to develop signaling systems that will help us with high-speed rail. guess what?

they've just had to lay off workers because we are not making the right kinds of investment into research and development and technology that's about jobs for the 21st century. and the president got it right. he said, you know what, we have to outinnovate, outeducate and outbuild. and the way that we do that, of course, is to invest in our educators, invest in our young people. we're doing exactly the opposite. the republican majority is doing the exact opposite here in this congress. again, 10 weeks of work and not a single job. in fact, congressman pete sessions from texas has just said, you know what, we are not going to create a jobs bill at all. we're not interested in jobs. all we're interested in is cutting government spending. what are they cutting? some of the most innovative research in this country. noaa that looks at our weather service, that makes sure that our farmers understands what's happening with our climate and our weather so that they can engage in production of

products throughout this country. what else are we doing? the national institutes of health doesn't need $2.5 billion to continue innovative research in cancer and other things, things that actually play out in terms of the marketplace, creating private sector jobs in a new economy. and so i am really struck by the language of small business, the language of innovation, the language of job creation but not a single job. zero jobs, 10 weeks of a republican revolution, zero jobs. 700,000 jobs lost. and so i would urge my colleagues that if they really want to be about the 21st century, then, they should join us in expanding the research and development tax credit so those innovative firms can invest in all the technologies of the future so we can produce the ph.d.'s who are needed to conquer the 21st century and

then link that to manufacturing so that the small firms in my district and all across the country can take advantage of a research and development tax credit because they are making things where? making it in america. mr. garamendi: if america is going to make it we must once again make it in america. manufacturing matters, and the first step in the manufacturing of this century is the research. it's the well-educated work force that's capable of doing the new things and the research to go with it. and you have some major research facilities. noaa, nasa is in this area. in my district i have the lawrence berkley lab as well as the university of california-davis campus where research is what it's all about. in the continuing resolution, 700,000 jobs. that's a big number. and we just don't focus on that. but we're talking about real people.

this is the job next to you that's going to be lost. sandia laboratories was in my office not more than an hour ago talking about nuclear power and how we're going to deal with it. i told them if the republicans get their way 5,500 researchers at the national labs are going to lose their jobs. so what of tomorrow's energy systems? $1.7 billion would be -- would be taken out of the department of energy's future energy research. so solar, photo-voltaic, advanced biofuels, the research for tomorrow so we can actually wean ourselves from foreign oil gone, gone. you go, what is this, just a feeding frenzy? is it wise? is there any real thought put on this? i think the answer for me is no. i think you saw that. i notice that our colleague new

to the house but not new to the issues from rhode island has joined us. so how does this affect rhode island, what does this mean to your state? mr. cicilline: thank you for organizing this special order. i'm new to this chamber. i've been here two months but i think the poll that was released today, the bloomberg poll released this morning, again, found that america's top priority is jobs and getting people back to work. we've been here 10 weeks and the republican-controlled congress has presented zero jobs, hasn't presented a jobs bill, has presented a spending plan that will cost 700,000 jobs. that's an analysis done by respected economists across the country. rhode island is a state that has a very rich manufacturing history. we are the place where the industrial revolution began, home to some of the greatest manufacturing. and i think like many states we have suffered in this recent

economy, rhode island's been particularly hard hit. i think if we are going to remain a world economic power we absolutely have to make things again in america, and, you know, if you ask people who believe that we're losing that position as a world economic power and say who do they think is the world economic power, they say china. you say, why china? they say, because china makes everything. i asked my constituents during my campaign, go into a store in rhode island, try to find something made in america. it's almost impossible. and i really hope that the 112th congress will be the congress that revitalizes manufacturing in america. and that is making sure that we provide manufactures the tools they need, -- manufacturers the tools they need, allow them to compete globally and to be really making the kinds of investments in manufacturing that is necessary, not only to create jobs in the short term,

but ensure the long-term economic health and prosperity of our country. and what i'm afraid the republicans have proposed in their budget proposal, in an effort to make cuts now are seriously compromising our ability to lead the world as an economic power. we have to cut spending. we have to be responsible about managing this deficit, but we have to do it in a smart and strategic way that protects our investment in education, in innovation, in science and research so that we can make the new discoveries, develop the new products and then manufacture them and lead the world as an economic power. this is an opportunity to real understand the urgency of supporting manufacturing so that we can start making things again in this country, start selling goods. that's how the middle class was built in america was through manufacturing. that built this country, a strong middle class, and the ongoing decisions that have been made by my friends on the other side of the aisle are undermining the middle class,

are weakening the ability for manufacturing to grow and i think they've made the bronk wrong decisions for our country. mr. garamendi: thank you very much for the per spectacular frven rhode island. i was years ago on the black river which i think was the -- mr. cicilline: black heart. mr. garamendi: and they were using water power for the mills at that time. fascinating, great history, and now the most advanced technology is also done in rhode island, a lot of it having to do with the construction of submarines and the like, very, very advanced. but all of that comes from the research, the engineering, the stem education, science education, mathematics. i want to turn back to our colleague from maryland and i see that she has a few more thoughts, she was anxious to get back into this discussion. ms. edwards: i want to thank you, mr. garamendi, because i'm excited about the prospect of manufacturing again in america in my home state of maryland,

about 40% of our economic base was manufacturing. today that's under 10%. and i think that that's a sign of what's happened all across this country. but it doesn't have to remain that way. today we heard the p.m. of australia ex -- prime minister of australia express a belief in america that i want america to express in herself. in terms of us leading the world in technology development and manufacturing for the 21st century. we need to return to that. there's still a lot of innovation that's going on, but let me tell you what's happened over the last couple of decades. the united states used to have the number one research and development tax credit in the world. today we're number 17. from number one to number 17. and what that means when you begin to lose a hold of your innovation and other people are doing that innovation, pretty soon the production lines move to where the innovation is taking place. and so it's no accident that

manufacturing is leaving to where some of that innovation is taking place in other countries. i want to make sure that we're doing it, that we are making it, that we are manufacturing it right here in the united states. let's take solar panels as an example. all of the great solar technology that we have developed right here in the united states, where do we make solar panels? every place else. particularly in china. well, we should be making those in the united states, production lines and manufacturing lines that are actually close to where the research and development is taking place. and we can go industry by industry, sector by sector, and make the argument for making it in america. we are great innovators but we don't want to be at number 17 when it comes to incentivizing through our tax policy good things, incentivizing innovation and manufacturing here in the united states, creating local jobs. i mean, the couple of firms

think a talked about, they have 200 employees. some of those employees graduated high school and they're working on that production line. high paid jobs working on that production line. and they're working alongside engineers who have ph.d.'s and researchers with ph.d.'s all along that production line, a couple of hundred employees. well, we should be doubling and tripling that all across communities across this country so that we're not at 10% of manufacturing capacity in my state but we're at 40% and 50% because then people are working, they've got good jobs, they've got great education and we are making it in america. mr. garamendi: let me pick up a couple of the theems that you hit upon. one of them -- themes that you hit upon. one of them, continuing on with research in this area of this part of the country and certainly in the san francisco bay area where i represent, health care research is huge, it

is an extraordinarily big part of the economy, both the research and then the spinoffs from it. we call in the biotech and this is almost entirely health care related biotech. we also have the biofuels again coming out of research. the republican continuing resolution reduces funding for the national institute of health by $1.6 billion. we're talking about 25,000 health-related research projects that will either stop, be delayed or pushed off the track. 25,000. we're talking about things that are really serious to us. heart disease, diabetes, cancer, all of the things that affect every american and literally everybody in this world. the research would be slowed down, stopped and in some cases terminated as a result of the feeding frenzy that went on here on this floor where more than 400 amendments were considered

with very, very little thought. our colleague, betty sutton, talked about, yes, cut, but be smart with your cuts. don't just take whatever is on your mind, whatever the latest sound bite is, because it may have a very dert mental effect. you look at -- detrimental effect. you look at this case, the national institute of health. human health. our well-being as americans. 25,000 research jobs would be terminated. now, the press doesn't follow the details, the press follows the game. is the senate going to act or will we have a government shutdown? that's interesting game but underlying those, will they won't they issues are the issues of what actually is in the legislation and this particular piece of legislation, 700,000 jobs, critical needs that we have as human beings for health, jobs that we need in the future,

whether they are in the science field, in the manufacturing field and jobs for today in the construction industry. pulling money out of construction for infrastructure, programs to provide clean water for our communities, thousands of those programs will die as a result of the republican continuing resolution which is now before the senate. hopefully the senate will be wiser than what happened here on the floor. we can go on and on. i developed a list, i call it the dirty dozen, and these are specific things, education, i know that's a big thing in your district, university of maryland, i think it's adjacent to your district, but you claim it, don't you? ms. edwards: let me just -- i actually, i'm having a conversation this afternoon with the president of the university of maryland. i was out at the university of maryland campus over the past weekend and like campuses all across this country that are engaged in some of the top notch

research that's going on in the country, i was with 300 young people from kindergarten to 12th grade over at the university of maryland, all interested in the stem field, interested in science technology, engineering and math, interested in making a career in those fields that are about the 21st century. and sadly here we are in the united states congress, completely disconnected to communities, completely disconnected to young people in their aspirations for the future, cutting, slashing, burning, cutting programs that are about educating our young people to take advantage of the 21st century and so it just seems that there's a complete disconnect between what the majority is doing and how that will play out for our future and so i had to say to these young people, you know, stay with it, stick with those stem fields, with the science and the technology and the engineering and math, go on to that engineering school, go on into the biosciences that we see

coming out of the university of maryland, go on into the space program because we're investing in technologies, not just that are going to open up our universe but that actually have real application here on earth. and we have to continue our young people to do that but it really does fly in the face of what's actually being done by this republican majority, to cut away at education for the future, to say, we don't really want to manufacture things here in the united states and say that we don't really care whether we make that research and development tax credit permanent so that small firms can innovate and create and hire. but we know that america compares -- cares about those things and that's why it's important for us to have this conversation with the american people about what it's going to take really to jump start the economy and the things that are happening in this congress that are going to put, you know, a kabash on that, cutting 700,000 jobs, zero jobs created in 10

weeks of this congress and not investing in our future. not investing in our manufacturing. mr. garamendi: precisely so. at the university of maryland i suspect it's similar to what i found in the california state university system which is the largest university system, they would argue, in the world, we may want to fine out what china's actually up to, but it's a huge system. the pell grants is a critical element in providing the opportunity for students to stay in school. yet the continuing resolution supported by the republicans here on this floor and now over in the senate for consideration would drastically reduce the pell grant by some $870 per person. at the same time that the tuition at all of the universities is going up. literally making it very difficult for tens or hundreds of thousands of students to stay in school and these are the future workers in the high value jobs that we need here in

america. so it's not just the higher education and the pell grants that are being cut, but at the beginning, the head start program, we're talking about young children who do not have an opportunity because of their family's poverty to get started in education. a proven program that actually works. now, not every head start program and last year we put together a program to weed out those that are not successful and bring in new ones that would be able to replace them. but 218,000 young children from impoverished families are going to be thrown off of the head start program, not next year, but as soon as this continuing resolution becomes law. and we can't let that happen. so we'll fight fiercely and hopefully the president, should this somehow pass the senate, and come back to this house and

be passed, the president should veto it. because i know that he wants to outeducate, outbuild and outinnovate every other country in the world and you cannot do that with -- unless you have a highly educated work force soon and later beginning with those children in the head start program. now, this is a program in your area, as i understand, that is important to you. ms. edwards: well, you've raised -- just yesterday educators from my congressional district were here on capitol hill. they were educators that -- from a historically black college, that is now poised to get research grants going into historically black colleges and universities cut by the republican majority in the continuing resolution. there were representatives here from the university of maryland, i've spoken again about the wonderful work that they are doing in cybersecurity, in

aerospace research over at that university campus, cut in this continuing resolution. there were educators from our community colleges that are training both young people and people who want new and real skills for this new economy cut in this continuing resolution. and you spoke about the pell grants. what these universities and community colleges share in common in higher education is that they know that in order to bring up the most diverse work force, a trained and skilled work force, we also need students who come from vulnerable families, whose families can't afford to send them to school and what have we done? we've cut out that have continuing resolution, the republican majority has cut $845, $870 from pell grants. you know what that means? that's books for a semester, not even two semesters, but, you know, probably a semester. and so i have to wonder what the

majority is thinking about the future. they may be thinking about today, maybe, and we can argue about that, but they surely are not thinking about the future by cutting education, by not investing in manufacturing, by not investing in research, by not investing in all of the things that will make us competitive for the 21st century. mr. garamendi: i notice that our colleague -- we kind of bracket the united states here, we got the east coast with maryland and i'm out on the pacific coast, but somewhere in between i believe is the state of colorado and i noticed our colleague from the state of colorado was standing over there and he had that, i got to get involved in this look. please join us and share with us colorado which has some of these programs that are very, very important to all of us. mr. perlmutter: your point, to my friend from california, is that manufacturing matters in vs. -- matters and having jobs in america matters. if we make it in america we will make it in america.

our focus should be on providing good jobs here with good infrastructure, whether that's education, highways, transit, energy, in this country so that for ourselves, our kids, our grandkids there's a prosperous future. but the republicans completely missed that entire approach. and i liken it to this. people say let's look at it if this is a family and a family has to tighten its belt sometimes. no question about it. let's really look at what's occurred here and look at the country as a family because we are all in this together. you know, sometimes we can do something by ourselves, but most of the time we're in this together. and so what's happened here -- let's look at it -- is at the beginning of this century back in 2001, 2003 -- 2002, the

country took a voluntary pay cut. when the tax cuts under bush came down the country took a voluntary pay cut. so then the next thing that happens is besides taking a voluntary pay cut, that family or that person goes out and he builds two houses. we went to war twice in the middle east to the tune of who knows how much money but at least $1 trillion. so now we've taken a pay cut. we are building two houses. mr. garamendi: two wars. mr. perlmutter: which are two wars, and all of a sudden the breadwinner has a heart attack and that's what happened in the fall of 2008 when we had the financial crash. so no income or lower income and lots of hospital bills and those hospital bills came in the form of unemployment insurance, cobra for health

insurance and all sorts of things designed to keep the country moving forward despite the financial crash. so now, just as the person begins to recover, the breadwinner recovers from the heart attack and is starting to earn a salary again, hospital bills start dropping but you still have hospital bills to pay, my friends on the republican side of the aisle said, wait a second, we should pay them all right now. no question they should have to be paid, but you also got to get healthy. and just as we're starting to add jobs in this country, just as people are starting to get back to work, my friends on the republican side of the aisle want to blame the debt of this country, not on the voluntary pay cut, the tax cuts, not on the two wars, not on the financial crash, they want to blame it on head start. they want to blame it on energy efficiency. they want to blame it on education.

those are the kinds of things that make the patient stronger and healthier and this nation stronger and healthier so that we can have jobs here, so that we can build things here, so that we can have a prosperous future for ourselves and our kids. and my friends on the republican side of the aisle are so misdirected on this that it's scary, and americans should really sit up and take notice that their future is really being put to the test by the approach that the republicans want to take to balancing our budget and to building our future. and with that i'd return the conversation to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: well, let's continue the conversation for a few moments here. presumably, these cuts were made to deal with the deficit. we've got a deficit problem. thank you so very much for

going back to the history of how we wound up with this huge deficit problem. it did begin in 2000 when the clinton administration left office. the projection for the decade 2000 to 2010 was that there would be a $5 trillion surplus. $5 trillion surplus. based upon the policies that were in place when clinton left office. 2001, $5 trillion surplus. literally paying off all of america's debt. gone, history. what happened? how well you said it. two tax cuts that were not paid for, that cut the revenue of the federal government. two wars, afghanistan and iraq, not paid for. first time in america's history that we went to war without

having some way to pay for it. that is some tax policy to pay for it. and then, on top of that a medicaid -- medicare program, the drug benefit. again, $100 billion program not paid for. and then the heart attack. the crash of the world economy caused by excess wall street exuberants. in many cases it was fraud, misdirection, and the collapse of the financial industry, taking down the world economy and our economy. mr. perlmutter: will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i certainly will. mr. perlmutter: and to that point, the financial heart attack that this country suffered and the world suffered . now, the country starts to get back on its feet. under barack obama in march two

years ago the president had been in office one month. we hit the bottom of the stock market. it had fallen some 6,000 points in the last months of george bush. since president obama came into office the stock market has gained 6,000 points. almost two years ago to the day the stock market reversed itself under his leadership. now, part of that is we put some police back on wall street. not in excessive way, but in a way to make sure that investors and people dealing with the financial industry were getting a fair shake, and confidence has been restored to some degree in the financial industry. now, my republican friends, that's another place they want to cut. let's take the cops back off the beat, both on wall street as well as all across the

country. again, a very wrong-headed move to build the future of this nation. now, i'd like to just do one other family analogy, if i could. so, you know, we've had this tremendous fall. the family has to manage its expenses. needs to get its income up and it needs to manage the expense side. so what we have is say, ok, we have aunt maud. she's in a nursing home. we have nephew joey. he's in a preschool, you know, down the street. and we have uncle rex who is an oil company executive and we've been helping all of them. we've been helping aunt maud. we've been helping nephew joey and helping uncle rex. well, under the republican approach, they want to kick aunt maud out of the nursing home. they want to make sure that there is no preschool for nephew joey but want to keep sending the check to uncle rex.

we are all in this together. if we want to manage this deficit, pay down the debt, we are all in this together. and the approach they have taken doesn't make sense. mr. garamendi: if we were to look at the proposal that president obama put forth in his budget, came out about a month ago, he put forth a program that would hold government expenditures at a five-year cease. that is no increase but able to continue to pay for those necessary programs for aunt maud and for nephew rick -- was it nephew rick? mr. perlmutter: nephew joey. mr. garamendi: so that was to freeze the level of expenditure and to put in place tax policies so that your oil company executive would begin paying a fair share rather than getting a very significant tax break, beginning to pay their share back into this economy.

over time. and this was in about seven years, the percentage of the g.d.p., the gross domestic product that was to debt -- or to the deficit would fall around 11% down to about 3% so that it would be managed over time. going back to your analogy, you got all of those debts built up during the 2000 to 2010 period or 2008 period, and then taking time, six, seven years, to bring it back under control. not with the kind of chaotic cuts that are now being proposed by our republican friends where we would actually slow down the economy. throw some 700,000 people out of work, reducing some tax revenues, increasing unemployment. unemployment expenses go up. hospitals, emergency room expenses go up because people no longer have health care.

and on the other end, people losing their homes. you don't have a job, you can't pay the mortgage, you are going to lose their home. so the housing market would also be hit as a result of the proposal that actually passed this floor with republican support. i think there are only three or four democrats that voted for it. we need to have a ma lies policy. we need to make cuts, be sure we make cuts. i want to put one example on the table before we go further and people think we're not supporting cuts. we asked last year, the congressional research office, nonpartisan group, to take a look at governmental programs and to tell us where the duplication is, where the unnecessary programs are in governmental programs. that report just came out yesterday, and i was thumbing through it quickly. i don't have it in front of me, but i was going through it, and what struck me was that most of the duplication, most of the

unnecessary programs and the waste turned out to be in one department of this government. it happens to be the department of defense. no surprise. no surprise. duplication, unnecessary expenditures. and line after line after line came up that that's where we should be focusing. there are other programs, but the big buck, the big dollars were in the department of defense. i think this war in afghanistan ought to end right away. that's $120 billion. let's just say we leave behind in afghanistan for social economic development to deal, like a laser, on al qaeda, the real terrorists that may be there and in pakistan and other places, let's say we can take back $100 billion. that happens to be $40 billion more than the congressional

resolution that was -- the continuing resolution that was put forth here. don't want to get too far off-track, but that's a lot of money. and ultimately we're going to leave, and they are going to go about doing what they need to do over there, but we need to focus on the terrorism and focus significantly like a laser on it. maybe i got a little bit off-track with it but you want to save $100 billion, there's $100 billion. mr. perlmutter: will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: please. mr. perlmutter: so i just say to my friend from california, just going back to those, you know, my analogy or my metaphor of voluntary pay cut and then you build two houses after taking a voluntary pay cut, that is the two wars, there is good news but there's much work to go is that the war in iraq, we had 150,000 people there. under the obama administration it's been drawn down to about

50,000 and it's shrinking. we're already saving $100 billion a year there alone. obviously you got to look at afghanistan and continue drawdown because that's money that could go towards not increasing the debt but ultimately reducing the debt. the other thing is that when people are back to -- the best way to shrink the deficit just in that same analogy i was giving is to put people back to work. the more people that are working the better off we are. and i mean both -- we're in this together. i mean, that's the whole point of this. this country it says e pluribus unum. we are in this together. those guys, those guys making a lot of money, god bless them. the little guys working their fannies off, god bless them. we're in this together. and the only way we deal with problems in this nation is when

we deal with them together, and this country is a great nation. we will solve these problems. there will always be problems in the future, and we just take them one at a time as they come. we can do this. we will do this. we will have a prosperous future for all of us. we got some work to do right now. my plea to my friends on the republican side of the aisle is don't cut off the nation's nose to spite its face. we can take care of these responsibilities and pay these bills. that's what america does, it pays its bills. we need to do it in a sensible way and not cut out the future and the opportunity that so many americans get from their education, from the infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt and from making things here in this country. so with that i'd yield back to my friend from california and thank him for letting me speak

as part of his special order. garegrare -- mr. garamendi: two things immediately on my mind and i say that our senior colleague from the great state of new york has joined us. i want to call on him in just a second. one of the things we are focused on in the democratic caucus is making it in america, rebuilding the manufacturing in america so that america can really make it. manufacturing really matters because this is where the middle class is. this is where the middle-class jobs are. when you couple that with the power of the unions to make sure that working men and women, the middle class, get a share of the wealth that's generated when we manufacture things. so what's going on in the midwest in wisconsin and ohio and other states, is really important in making sure that the wealth that is generated in this nation is available to everyone in this nation, particularly those people that are making things in america once more.

wouldn't we all love to go into a target store and find on every shelf made in america? chinese, ok, fine, you guys are doing ok, but i want those things made in america. two pieces of legislation that i've introduced, along with many others that my colleagues have introduced, simply says that if it's our tax money that's being used to support, for example, solar, the wind turbines, the biofuel systems, if it's our tax money that's being used for the production tax credits or to subsidize the solar cells on your house, buy american-made cells. buy american. that's american dollars, use that money in america. similarly you and i, we're paying 18.5 cents on every gallon of gas to support the traffic, to support the highway construction, buses, trains, light rail systems.

our money should be used to purchase trains and buses and light rail systems that are made in america. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: yes. >> then i'll turn it over to the gentleman from new york. on that point you raise a great point. mr. perlmutter: here we are finally making some progress on energy efficiency and renewable energy and we know you've got to have the whole menu of ways to power this country. it's oil and gas, it's going to be carbon-based fuels, it's going to be nuclear, it's going to be renewable energy and energy efficiency. but under my republican colleagues' plans we're going to go right back to where we were as we see gasoline starting to go through the roof. so we're always going to be at the whim of importing oil. i mean, i feel like sometimes my friends on the republican side of the aisle, their mantra is, let's export jobs and import oil. it's just wrong.

it's wrong for this nation, it's wrong for the future, for our future and our kids and we really have to be focusing on that. this nation needs to come together because we can build that better future together and not just doing some of the, i think the knee jerk things that the republican party has requested of the congress. it's bad for america, it goes way too far and i know we can do better. with that i'd yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. garamendi: mr. rangel, please join us here. mr. rangel: thank you so much. i was in my office doing a lot of work and i couldn't figure who you people were talking about, that must have been some foreign enemies of the united states that really was not supporting the things that, as far as i'm concerned, it just makes common sense, it's just a patriotic agenda, it's just something that if america's given us the opportunity to get

to where we are and our parents to where they are then it would just seem to me that we're not talk -- we can't afford to talk like democrats and republicans, we're talking about america. and america -- an america that can be and continue to be a beacon for countries all over the world. you mentioned manufactured, made in the united states. i remember i was on a trade mission in the caribbean and there was some difficulty, some members -- difficulty some members had about whether or not we should get preferential treatment to these small countries. my contribution was, i just walked around, everything that was in the places that were there. the corn flakes came from the united states, the cards came, the lamps came from the united states, the furniture came from the united states. doing trade with them meant that we were encouraging our base to do what we do best and that is

to make things. and so it just seems to me that when we get a flicker of hope coming out of detroit, oh, my god, detroit when i was a kid after world war ii, i really thought i was in heaven to see little class -- middle class people with cars and little boats and kids going to college that never dreamed, their parents never dreamed about it. but they were making things, they were making money, they were investing in our future and now that they're coming back i cannot see why any police cars, fire cars, commuter cars, anything, how we can say that we ought to go to detroit first before we go to tokyo, before we go to taiwan and all these other countries. and it's the sense in saying that you made an investment in the country that created an atmosphere that makes us all proud.

to me, i like fighting republicans. i mean, it's what the country should be all about. and i've been here for four decades. it's been exciting. and people said, well, didn't this happen in 1994? no, we fought then. but we were still friends. we didn't have people putting down our country. we had different ideas how to reach the same objectives. we were concerned about jobs always, but also education, also health care. it's inconceivable how anybody, republican or democrat, can cut programs when if you go into an emergency ward in the hospital they don't ask for your voting card. they don't ask whether you're a democrat or a republican. if you're laid off and you go home and you have to tell your

wife or pull your kids out of school, the loss of self-esteem, the loss of the security that you have, the embarrassment that you got to lose your house, nobody asks, are you a democrat or a republican, are you a liberal or conservative? and it gets contagious as to what happens in one block when the house is foreclosed. then it happens in the community and then it happens to america and that is what's happening today. it's happening to our country. and so it seems to me that when people have campaigned and said that they want to stop spending, they want to stop borrowing and they want to raise revenue, they want to balance the budget, that's not republican, that's american. but when do you ever get the concept that just stopping spending in certain areas it

means that you have savings? i mean, you can cut someone's foot off but still you are going to have a problem with the rest of the economy. and if indeed the economists can tell you that their h.r. 1, continuing resolution, is going to lose 700,000 jobs, how in the world could we not debate that? how in the world can we not discuss that? how cannot a group of democrats and republicans say, well, look, we made these campaign promises, they were ridiculous, we really believe we ought to make sensible cutbacks, let us see how we can cut back without causing more economic problems for our country, but let's see whether or not the environmental problems still are going to continue, whether or not health problems are still going to be there and, my god, education,

education, the united states of america, education has been the key to opening the doors for imaginations to capture the entire world. and you don't have to have any bad feelings about other people in other countries, it's just that we're so used to being proud as americans, we're so used to saying that it was made in america, it must be better. and what we're not used to is asking for handouts, what we're not used to is having people to say that they're not going to help us one employment insurance, where we didn't want that, we wanted employment and they say, no, they can't even give us assistance while we're waiting for a break. right here in america there's so many people that have lost their jobs that, you know, john, those jobs will never be there for them. because productivity, technology

has closed the opportunity. my god, they have to be retrained and it reaches a certain age that retraining is not even an option. but for our young people, for them to go to school, for them to continue to believe in their community, their families and the country, you got to have training and education to find out what the demand's going to be. it won't be the same demand that we had perhaps when i was a kid or my parents was a kid, but they should be great opportunities in the greatest country in the world. and make no mistake about it, we're not broke. we are not broke. and we did not get into this thing in a democratic way or republican way, people made big, big, big mistakes and it wasn't the guy working on the job or the guy in the union that made the mistake. it wasn't that we all -- overcompensated public

employees, they didn't cause this deficit. but it just seems to me, john, that we shouldn't have to have this debate on this floor. people listening ought to recognize that just saying you're just cutting billions of dollars of resources and you got to cause pain to your young people, to our senior citizens, is a campaign promise that shouldn't have been made and certainly shouldn't be carried through. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield. first, thank you so very much for joining us and bringing a perspective of four decades of extraordinary work here on the floor and in the committees and keeping us on track. keeping that vision that america is a great place. and americans are strong and resilient and really want to improve their position and even more so want to improve their children's position. and therefore the key investments that we must make for today and on into the future are pretty straight forward. we need to have the best

education in the world. we got a long way to go, we're not going to get there by eliminating head start, eliminating the pell grants, forcing kids out of school, shutting down classes, taking classes from 20 to 35 kids, that's what my daughter faces. she's a second grade teacher. she now has 33 kids in her class, probably have 35 in a couple of months. she had 20 last year. we can't improve the education system. research, that's tomorrow. research is tomorrow. and if we don't do it today we will lose this. already i'm getting companies coming to me and saying, we have to improve the research, we have to have that research tax credit because what's happening is the manufacturing isn't in america, it's overseas and now the research is following the manufacturing. we've got to turn that around and yet the continuing resolution cuts research, energy

research, research in manufacturing, research in health care. so where's tomorrow? tomorrow's going to be overseas unless we return it to america with smart investments in the future. infrastructure, transportation, moving people here and there, information infrastructure, the continuing resolution cuts infrastructure. those are today jobs that give us the future. you can go on and on here. we're nearly out of time. what i would ask my republican colleagues is, put the feeding frenzy aside. sit down and look at what really can be cut without harming the future. we can do this. we can make it once again in america if we use our tax policy wisely, use our tax money to support american-made products, buses, trains, solar cells, wind turbines, our tax money should be used to buy those pieces of equipment that are made in america.

mr. rangel: would the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i'd loo love to yield to you any time. mr. rangel: just on the tax policy, to believe that the top 1% of the wage earners or the income people in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth, that the president of the united states has to go to the united states chamber of commerce and to remind them of the hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers have given to them so they would be able to survive and that they won't take a gamble with their country in terms of helping us in partnerships to create the jobs that we need so badly. if we cleaned up the tax code, we can find so much that we can reduce the rates and make certain incentives to encourage people to invest in the good u.s.a. so let me thank you so much for the contribution you're making

to me -- you're making to. me, anyone watching -- making. to me, anyone watching should find out what's good for our country. mr. garamendi: this is a great country. and we're going to have a great future. we're in tough times right now and we've been in tough times in the past. but if we have wise thoughtful policies we'll pull this country together. we'll deal with the deficit, we just can't do it in ways that are not wise, that do not give us the investments for the future. i think our time is expired, thank you so very much for joining us. thank you for your years of service to this nation. as a member of congress and as a war hero. we thank you. mr. rangel: thank you for yielding. mr. garamendi: we yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate being recognized. mr. speaker, in 1994 when the republicans were placed in control of the house and senate, they produced a magnificent piece of legislation, a legislative weapon against the overreaching of government. this was done in the clinton

administration and was signed into law by that president. this weapon hasn't been used but once during the clinton administration and not at all during the three g.o.p. -- the g.o.p.-led years of president bush. what it's called is the congressional view act. this is an act that requires all federal agencies to submit any new major regulation to the united states congress for 60 legislative days prior to its enactment during which time the congress can vote to block these new rules that the congress sees fit. with mr. obama in the white house and senator reid still throttling back in the senate, the congressional review act gives the house the potential to block at least -- or at least expos the outrageous new -- expose the outrageous new rules being promulgated on the

american people. they are controversial rules that cost americans jobs. you know, if there's one thing that the american people have told us that they are most interested in besides the fact that we are running away with spending in this -- in this congress is that they want jobs. you know, you can do whatever you want to to a family but if you give a family a job that family has at least the security of that employment. and these regulations that have the potential to rather than create jobs to destroy jobs by that destructive nature should be seriously looked at by this house of representatives. one of the things that people don't understand about how a federal government works is -- in fact, we have this said to us all the time. you pass x law and it is really affecting our business, really

hurting my business when in reality we may have passed the law itself may not have had any harm to their business at all but the regulations promulgated by the authority giving rule-making power on that legislation, those regulations have the effect of law and yet they are not passed by this congress. they are passed by the various agencies and bureau of the country when the congress gives them regulatory authority. now, you ask -- you may ask if you really don't know what's going on here -- how important is that? well, let's just take a look at last year. last year the federal government issued a total of 3,316 new rules and regulations, an average of 13 new rules a day, 78 of those new rules last year were major rules. the definition of a major rule is a rule that may result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in the cost of prices or costs to the consumer and significant effects on the economy, including employment. the obamacare bill, which was passed by this congress in the last session of congress, the health care bill, is arguably the mother of all rules creators. the congressional research service says that obamacare gives federal agencies substantial responsibility and authority to fill in the details of that bill. and of that legislation with subsequent regulations. there are more than 40 provisions in the health care bill that is called the overhaul bill that requires, permits or contemplates federal rule-making authority just in that one act of congress. 40 different agencies can create rules that effect the

health care of every american citizen. this house can fight back on those rules with this congressional review act. now, what is the congressional review act? as i said, they filed this with the congress. and then for 60 legislative days, the legislative days has a definition. a legislative day is a day that this congress is available to act. so if the congress recesses for three days, those three days are not counted in the number of days, so it's not 60 calendar days, it's 60 legislative days. for instance, if you look at the last congress, rules that were filed last summer, which last june, in fact, which would be more than six months from the first of january, those rules are still available for review. how is that possible? well, between first of june and

the end of the year, this legislative body was not in a legislative day 60 days. we have the longest recess in probably the history of the republic that took place in august because of the political world that the majority saw itself in and the fact that they needed -- felt like they needed to be six weeks back home to do the politics. so the majority gave us a long recess. we had a break in the fourth of july. then we came back for two weeks. then we went back home for campaigning. and then we came back after campaigning in december for two weeks. so in total we didn't reach 60 calendar days -- excuse me -- legislative days. but all that counting starts over with a new congress. something that most americans don't know is every time we have a new congress everything new starts over.

so we rewrite rules for two years ago that governed this body, we had to write new rules that govern this session of congress. and after the two years we rewrite new rules. i guess we're required -- i guess to do world every morning -- but for this congress a new world is every two years because we are the people's court. the house of representatives is the people's house, and the people's house changes depending on who gets elected every two years. so now we have started a new 60-day period. the bills that were filed, that would be -- the rules that were filed that would be subject to this congressional review act, those rules were all filed on the 15th day of february. that was the first -- that was the first time that both houses

were completely in session. and so these things will expire sometime in june. after that clock has run, then this house can no longer act. so the house right now during this period of time from february until june to act on a lot of regulations. and this gives us a chance to make a determination. i want to try to give you some examples, and this is kind of a congressional review act right here. i want to give you some examples of some kind of rules that are available to be dealt with under the congressional review act and will be dealt with under the congressional review act. the f.c.c. has proposed rules that will allow the federal government to act as a gatekeeper and prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking our

slowing web traffic. these new f.c.c. rules will restrict access to the internet and stall our economy. further hindering job creation. most people think the internet works pretty good right now, but there are those that thinks the federal government should intervene on the internet and the agency in the executive branch should have a chance to actually regulate and decide how the internet is going to operate. we can't affect the internet worldwide but we can affect the internet in the united states. most of us feel we should not be intruded, in fact, on the internet. this is now coming up for disapproval under house -- h.j.res. 37. greg walden is carrying the

ball on this. and that clock expires on the 14th day of june. in the rule for portland cement manufacturing -- what is portland cement? it's that bag of powder that you mix with water to create cement. that's what it is. it is manufactured in the united states and manufactured all over the world. there is a regulation which would require the closing of 18 cement plants in this country and these jobs from these cement plants as a result of the regulations that are being proposed would be forced to move to india and china if they wanted to continue to produce portland cement because they would not be able to meet the standards that would be established by this rule. the u.s. cement industry today provides more than 15,000

highways jobs with an average compensation of $75,000 per year along with allied industries that account for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross domestic product. a statement made by the concrete people is that there is only one element in the world that is more prevalent in construction than concrete and that's water. they have to realize that the second element most important to construction around the world is the production of cement, production of concrete. and water is the only one that's more important. it's a pretty amazing amount of concrete that is required in the world. and yet as a result of this rule, there is a distinct possibility that we would be having to look at about 70% of our concrete manufacturing would have to be outside of our country. now, there have been a lot of

this -- this is' been a lot of criticism of this challenge to this rule because people are saying, but, look, these concrete -- these cement manufacturers put mercury into the -- into the air. they don't regulate mercury. i just want to show you something that i think is very interesting in this argument that's made. this map by the electric power research institute -- and, remember, these numbers -- this is the most and this is the least amount of mercury production on our chart. now, if you will notice that all of the red and these green and yellows here in there that's scattereded in there is heavy concentration of mercury in the air. the source of that mercury

originates outside the united states. this is not the result of american production of portland cement. this is the result of foreign production of portland cement because nobody regulates those -- these are regulated industries already in this country and nobody regulates those industries outside this country, and because of the prevailing winds of the far east, more than half of the united states has a major mercury output. and the solution is to write a bill that will force more companies to go overseas. that means more mercury will be in the air because they will be sending them to unregulated countries. this is a bill that wasn't thought out. this rule is not thought out well enough, and so we should stop it and we should sit down and work out a clean air set of regulations that actually work to reduce this mercury

production and in fact bring more people producing in this country as to not producing in this country. you know, one of the things i hear every day when i go back to texas is, when will you stop outsourcing our jobs to other countries? and yet we are writing a regulation right now under clean air that is going to outsource thousands of american jobs to other countries. this is something that needs to be thought through. many times these agencies, because they don't answer to the american public in any form or fashion, other than this review, these are things that they need to be sat down and we need to get their heads on straight. so, this new rule, we will try to raise this rule. now, why would we -- how does it -- what you say, this is how it works in the house of representatives, how does it work in the senate? what makes this a really

interesting rule is you first need to know what the rules of procedure are in the senate. in the senate it takes 60 senators to agree to bring anything to a vote in the senate. which makes it difficult to bring things to a vote when more than half of the senators have to agree just to bring something to a vote. but written into this act, signed by president clinton into law, is the provision that this particular examination of rule making authority only requires 30 senators to agree for a vote, it can be brought to a vote. so when it passes out of the house and goes over to the senate, it only takes 30 senators to agree to bring this to a vote. if it passes the senate then it it's sent to the president's dess -- then it's sent to the president's desk and he's got the only vote left in many cases to prevent bad regulations. the president told us the last

time he a press conference that he was going to stop job-killing regulations in this country. and these regulations we're going to be working on are job-killing regulations. so we're going to give him the opportunity to do that. if he chooses to veto it, so be it. basically he had the one vote that could have stopped the job-killing regulations. the office of national coordinator for health information technology, as promulgated, complex and confusing rules establishing what it means for hospitals and physicians to have a certain e.h.r., whatever that is, don't-ask, don't-tell know what that is, if -- whatever that is, i don't know what that is, otherwise it increases the cost of e.h.r. installations and limits the innovation in health information technology market.

another rule that's out there is called the boiler-mack rule. the environmental protection agency is proposing four separate rules that would establish more stringent emissions standards on industrial and commercial boilers and process heaters. the broad-reaching proposals could cost manufacturers over $20 billion in compliance costs to place hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. this needs to be dealt with by the 21st of june. the florida knew measuric nutrient water quality standards rule, this is also by the e.p.a., as i understand it, this rule mandates nutrient standards for florida lakes, rivers and streams in response to litigation initiated by environmental special interest groups, the florida department of agriculture and consumer services concluded that florida's agriculture community will lose 14,545 full time or

part time jobs and $1.148 billion in sales annually if this rule is approve. this is why this congress ought to look at this rule. h.h.s. rule on medical loss ratio, compliance under the patient protection and affordable care act, this regulation requires all health plans to pay a minimum of 80% of premiums toward health services, larger insurers to pay a minimum of 85%, industry analysis estimates that as many as 47% of the participants in individual and small group plans which have higher administrative costs due to the economy of scale will lose their health insurance if this regulation becomes law. so this one regulation, which comes out of the -- what we call obamacare bill, could cause 47%

of the people who have small to midsized health care plans to lose their health care plan. we actually have a bill that is coming to the floor this congress, geoff davis of kentucky has introduced this bill, it mandates that all new major rules must be approved by congress before becoming law. it's pretty simple, just supplements what we're already dealing with by saying, it uses the same definition for major rules and requires congress to approve all major rules, federal regulations before they become effective. why would we do that?

start off with 3,000-plus regulations were passed last year. and these regulations could cause you or others to lose their jobs. and so at least if it's our responsibility and i think it is our responsibility in this house for us to come up with solutions that make jobs be created rather than make jobs disappear then those things that have a potential to make jobs disappear , it's part of our responsibility to take a hard look at those regulations that might make jobs disappear. this is not rocket science, this is pretty easy stuff. we, who are the people's representatives, who were elected to represent the people of the united states, and remember how our founding fathers set up our constitution, the senators represent states and the congress, the house of representatives represents

people. our districts are drawn based on the population in those districts. their district is the whole state and they represent the state of texas or the state of new jersey or the state of new york or the state of california and all the other states. so we are the direct link to the people, we are the only branch of this house and senate where no one can sit in these seats and be a member of congress unless they were elected. that's something a lot of people don't know. a senator, if we should have a senator and heaven forbid die while in office, that senator can be temporarily replaced by an appointment by the governor of the state that that senator represents. but if we have a member of congress, heaven forbid, die while in office, that congressman has to be elected before they can serve in the house of representatives. so we are the people's house. we are the only house that

depends upon the vote of the people to keep us here under all circumstances. so if that's how we get here and our responsibility in today's economy is to try to get ourselves out of the poor house with all the borrowing we've been doing and to help create jobs so americans can get back to work, if americans get back to work we will have a solution in many instances to the problems that face our country right now as far as debt and other things because if they're working, they're paying taxes and those taxes will help alleviate the issues we have. so if that's the case, why wouldn't it make just decent common sense that this congress, the people's house, would have the opportunity to look at regulations that might destroy jobs and if we have credible people that are saying they will destroy jobs then we need to look seriously at those

regulations. and maybe it's just a matter of killing the job-killing regulations so we can renegotiate regulations that solve the problem without driving industries overseas or killing the jobs that these industries create. sometimes agencies are not putting priorities on people, they're putting priorities on other things. and therefore we need to examine our priorities, it's our job on this floor of this house is to make sure of the safety and welfare of our constituents back home and make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that they got a job. so they can support their families and support themselves. and right now with not 9% anymore, 8.9% unemployment, which is about as close to 9% as you can get without being there,

we are still in an unemployment nightmare in this country. i can remember back during the clinton administration when there were public service announcements made that said, 5.5% unemployment was full employment for the united states. we later learned that unemployment got down to, during the early part of the last decade, to much, much lower number than that. but we certainly know we cannot continue to tolerate somewhere between the top end of 8% and 10% unemployment and expect our economy to be healthy. we've got to get our people back to work. these regulations are part of the issues that are going to be important to discovering the solutions to this problem.

some would say this is controversial, some would say that if the congress interferes with regulatory authority then congress is going to take on something that by plan was passed out to the regulatory agencies to keep us from having to work so hard and getting into the weeds on all these bills. i didn't come up here and i don't think anybody came up here not to work hard. if they did then they probably don't belong being up here. and if -- and the actions of a regulatory board are an individual that's in charge of a regulatory agency has a dire effect upon the employment of any american citizen, i think we as the members of this congress have a duty and a responsibility to at least look at it, if we don't think it's bad, we can vote accordingly. but to just ignore it and let these things be created, i would

argue without a serious due process of law, because the only people to police this up is the various agencies in the executive branch of the government and it should be done by career bureaucrats. and they make these decisions. these people don't answer to the american people, they don't go before the american people for a vote every two years and therefore they don't feel that -- feel the pressure of the damage that can be done by some of these regulations. some of these regulations that are going to come before this house are going to be good regulations. and i would expect them to be voted for and upheld. but if we have the responsibility and the duty to protect our fellows then i think we should step forward and do that job and my friend from florida is, you're welcome. i'll yield whatever time you'd like to join me in commenting on this regulatory overreach.

>> i thank the gentleman from texas for recognizing me. i didn't plan to speak today but i was in my who was and i was listening to your explanation of this abhorrent and out-of-control administrative rules process where people who are not elected and are not accountable make up the rules as they go along, however they may want to. we've had a number of cases that has injured my constituents or at least caused them a lot of sleepless nights already. as you may know, sir, earlier this year the securities and exchange commission exposed their intent now to examine the entities that they regulate, not just based on their con for mans with securities law but on their environmental stewardship. mr. posey: now, these are the same people that couldn't put bernard may daff away when they were given an open and shut case

before madoff turned himself in. this is the same agency that hasn't disciplined anybody. nose nobody's had a day off yet. they can't do the job they're supposed to do now, but they're going to start regulating companies for their environmental stewardship based on rules that they promulgated and you're correct, that's the wrong thing to do. most recently and near and dee dear to my heart because it affects so many people in my state is the new rule the i.r.s. has proposed to deal with banks and foreign deposits. for over 90 years this country has encouraged foreign investors to put their money in our banks. it makes good sense, we have their money, we can loan it out, it creates jobs for americans. it's a win-win situation. it's a win for them, it's a win for us. now the i.r.s. has decided that they're going to promulgate a rule that says the banks must

notify the governments of every foreign depositor regarding how much money they have in our banks. now, what's the benefit to the united states for that? there is no benefit to the united states. they don't owe taxes in the united states. what's the liability to the united states for that? the liability is that $200 billion to $400 billion will leave american banks and go back into foreign banks. now you can imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be governed by hugo chavez, ahmadinejad or castro, what would happen if they found out that you had assets in the united states of america? you could not only lose your asset you might lose your life. but more importantly, this wrong headed rule would cause a dramatic destimulus effect on our economy when you look at

the stimulus bill of $800 billion that basically didn't perform like it was supposed to. it doesn't make much sense to write a rule that would take $200 billion to $400 billion, up to 50% as much as the stimulus bill was, out of our economy. the i.r.s. tried to do this about 10 years ago. over 100 members of congress stepped up and said this is a lousy idea and needs to be defeated. my plea today sir is that we can have at least 100 members of this congress that will again stand up and say, this was a bad idea 10 years ago, it was a bad idea now, let's kill this rule and don't let it happen. i thank you and i yield back. mr. carter: what's really interesting, mr. posey, they've got this new rule, i'm not sure who prom all gated it, -- promulgated it, that if you're

a volunteer on a commission or board that has anything -- that in any form or fashion handles money, you have to pay a $600 licensing fee to get a license to serve on a volunteer board. you know, the one that comes to mind is every city of any size has what's called a planning and zoning commission. i happened to serve as the chairman of that commission in my hometown of round rock, texas. it's a hard job and in many ways a thankless job, but now in order for a volunteer to come in and serve, for acy city to plan and zone the area for various constructions and businesses, you have to pay a fee to volunteer, 600 bucks. that's not how ridiculous it is. any board, agency or commission, and every state has literally thousands of these volunteer positions that people

do to help out their state, their city, their county, if there is any form or fashion of bonding exassfi for -- capacity for any relative group that you serve, you have to buy a license for 600 bucks because you are considered to be in the investment business. i'll yield back to mr. posey. mr. posey: i thank the gentleman again. many people, even elected people, aren't familiar with what exactly an administrative rule is. we talk about these administrative rules as rules and people wonder what they are. i used to explain to people that in florida, where i first got interested in the administrative rule process, all the laws on the books passed by their elected state officials were in four law books this big. they were shocked by that they said what about the commercials where we see the attorney in front of all the books

advertising for dewey, cheatham, and howe? i said that's last year's edition and the year before that and the interpretation of them but all the rules are in those four books. they are shocked. they say, we thought there were more laws than that. i said, there are more laws than that but those are all the laws that were made by people you elect. the administrative rules are laws which are made by unelected people that you don't vote for. and usually, they can fill up half the room. they probably fill up a quarter of this room. so that's what most people don't understand. the relatively fualaaus that are passed by people they elect and the plethora of rules that are passed by people they don't elect. it's up with of the reasons i ran for the state lem slayture, i promise midwife when i got off city council i would never

run for office again, she made me promise her. that changed. one of the reasons was, i was upset about the runaway proliferation of rules in that state. it seemed like they were making rules willy nily that were causing an inconvenience for every business and putting jobs in danger. i got elected and judge, you know, the first bill i passed made it a third degree misdemeanor for a bureaucrat to promulgate a rule not authorized by statute. of course people thought i was crazy. a lot of the media made fun of me, i was the brunt of a lot of jokes. the governor at the time had a hit squad go after that bill and when i had it up in committee, they went to every member and said, don't let it out of committee, but it still got out of committee and then they made it go through six more committees. i struggled with it for four

years, to no avail. other representatives were doing the same thing. it seemed like we were getting nowhere. then in the fourth year, the governor that had previously seemed so disgruntled with my legislation gave his final state of the state address wearing one of these belts like they wear at wal-mart or home depot, he was holding the rules that applied to a cook shack he wanted to build. and he said, we have got to do something about this out of control rules process and he gave every member of the house and every state senator at the time a copy of a book by philip howard called "the death of common sense." it's a great book and i urge people to read it. it's short, an easy read he talked about how the rule prosssess harmed society. mother theresa wanted a house for the homeless in new york city he located a perfect spot,

got the contractors ready, was ready to open the doors but the building department said no, you can't do that here. she said why? because that building does not have enough restrooms. so we have to continue to let the people sleep on the sidewalks and use the street far restroom because of their rigid, monolithic interpretation of the laws and rules. so as a result, finally, of his personal experience, the governor said, we need to change rules the rules procedure and we did. and you know, we changed the way rules are vetted, there's a joint administrative procedure committee which reviews every rule to make sure there's specific statutory authority to write that rule. the new process wasn't in order very long before one of the state agencies determined that

any land with a new type of fern on it should be considered a wetland and couldn't be used for development. fortunately, it impacted a very large landowner down there who challenged the rule through the administrative court, an administrative rule through an administrative judge. the administrative judge ruled in favor of the bureaucrats, saying the legislature could not possibly have met exactly what they said. that was the crux of their 38-page decision. so the next year we passed house bill 107 which basically said we mean, unequivocally, exactly what we said and from a rules perspective, the state has lived happily ever after. now washington is more dysfunctional than i anticipated it would be when i

got here and one of the worst dysfunctions is the administrative procedures or the administrative rules process here. it's shocking that, it's a very old process built on a flimsy foundation. there have been numerous attempts to fix it. none of them have been really successful and i think as you and i have discussed before, we need to have total reform. we need to start with a clean sheet of paper and we need to make the agencies accountable for the rules they write and they need to be specifically statutorily authorized to do those things. and so i hope that our colleagues will join with us as we move forward trying to seek an accountability and an efficiency in our government that is greatly lacking right now but is within our grasp. i yield back. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, would you like to speak? grab a mike.

you're from arkansas, right? mr. crawford from arkansas. we're glad you joined us. one of our new members who we're proud to have. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. carter: we're talking about the regulatory overreach of the federal government. mr. crawford: absolutely. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. under the oba maw administration, the administration is riddled with unelected officials regulating the american people, the f.c.c., for example, the e.p.a., dozens of appointed czars have too much to say. congress needs to take back the reins on the legislation which is what we were elected to do. appointed friends othey have 39 don't know what the people need, that's why we have congress. we were elected to know our districts and represent our districts' -- distributes' needs. that's why i know how damaging the regulations are to farmers, for example. e.p.a. has produced regulations

that go beyond the intent of the law. the clean air act was to give us clean air but the e.p.a. now has used it to regulate dust. here i am again talking ability this very same thing. i represent a heavily agricultural district in the great state of arkansas. any of the farmers in the first district will tell you this, food comes from the ground. in the process of taking it out of the ground, we'll stir up dust. now the e.p.a. wants to regulate that dust. it's a natural byproduct of growing crops and has been since we first put seeds in the ground. in order for farmers to do their job and feed the millions of hungry mouths in the country, they should be allowed to do their job without being poked and prodded by bureaucrats. the total cost to industry lies near $90 billion per year. a huge portion of this will be a direct hit to our farmers,

putting many permanently out of business. i'm certain the clean air act was not legislated to put farmers out of business. another example of unelected officials missing the mark is the fuel containment regulations. once again, the e.p.a. overstepping its bounds, telling farmers how to run the farms. not only does e.p.a. not trust farmers to run their operations, the regulations cost the farmers tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of their farms. farmers are smart people. it's in the best interest of them to invest in containment to ensure the land remains productive. farmers don't want to spend money to clean up a fuel spill. they shouldn't be forced to spend $10,000 for each containment facility when $100 -- when $1,000 will do the job. if we eat, we are involved in agriculture.

there are only one million farmers and 250,000 of them account for 80% of the total food production. i know in washington we can barely agree on anything. i think there's one thing we can agree on, regardless of political affiliation, age, race or gender, and that's that we like to eat. we need to bring common sense back to washington, quit letting the bureaucrats in washington run a rice farm in northeast washington and these this is why this is necessary. i stand with my colleagues to scale back the e.p.a. no longer should we let the tail wag the dog. i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. carter: i thank you for your comments. i'm sure there's got to be people listening to this that want to say, did he really say regulate dust? mr. crawford: absolutely. mr. carter: yes, there is a

proposed rule to regulate dust. this rule exists in the state of california, which is closest to bankruptcy of any state in this country. the central valley of california has had an issue about water and the shortage of water in the central valley, oner of the breadbaskets of the entire nation because of a debate over water, until it started to rain, they've been dry as a powder degree. but they have the dust regulation in california. so we inquired of them, what do you do if you've got a gravel road going up to your farmhouse to keep the dust down? well, we have to water it every day. we have to take this shortage water that we don't have enough to even grow a clump of spinach and we water our road so we don't violate our local clean air act in california. and i got humorous about that

because i went to school in -- at texas tech in texas. although we have come a long way on the south plains of texas in reducing the amount of dust storms that have been up in the panhandle of texas, we still have dust storms. when i was at texas tech, we had dust storms that were so bad that if you drove into the wind, they would literally sandblast the front paint off your car. i want to know what the fine is going to be and who is going to have to pay the fine when dust blowing in from new mexico to arizona comes blowing into your state and who is the e.p.a. going to punish? i've got a good idea. but chances are the farmer. mr. crawford: absolutely. mr. carter: that's the tragedy here. particles in the air are bad for folks like me who have asthma and we have to be concerned about it. and we're not going to let people overproduce any kind of

disaster. but to say you can produce no dust on a farm is pretty close to crazy. just turn of a plow creates dust, just driving the pickup truck to the barn creates dust. and i think it's a little overreaching. you know, i was talking about this $600 fee that you got to have to be a volunteer. everybody might realize and thought of a good one, everybody's got a school board in their state somewhere, a local school board and generally local school boards are either they're wanting to have a tax increase or they're wanting to sell a bond issue or something like that so they create these volunteer groups called friends of the school board who go out in the community and try to help the school board get this bond passed so they can have better schools for the children that have school district. everybody experiences that across this whole nation.

and every member of this congress probably knows something about that. but under this new proposed regulation, every one of those volunteers that goes out and promotes the bond issue would have to pay $600 federal fine to get a license to talk about the bond issue. as if they were some kind of financial advisor to the american public. and what we really have there is a new revenue source created by the bureaucrats to put more money in the coughers of their bureau or their agency. that's the kind of thing that makes no sense. my secretary was bragging on the fact that she thought the county commissioner was going to put her on this volunteer board. i said, you better get a check ready for $600. she said, well, no, it doesn't pay anything. i said, yeah, and by the way the

regulation also says that the person who appoints this, the entity that appoints you to that board cannot pay your $600 for you. you have to pay it. because you are now a financial advisor because that board has the ability to issue bonds. now, that's just a little bit too much. and that's the kind of thing that we are, you know, i had an old cowboy back in texas made a comment to me, he said, we don't have very many shortages in this country but one shortage we got in washington, d.c., is we got a severe shortage, damage near a drought, as he put it, in common sense. mr. crawford: amen. mr. carter: part of the reason we have the congressional review act is to that hopefully the common sense of the representatives of the people can prevail in these issues that are going to either harm our individual constituents, cost us

jobs or drive industries offshore, overseas, as we would with the cement manufacturers if we impose these severe penalties upon people who produce cement. portland cement is a process that they use to make cement. so, today we're talking about what's, i think is something that the american people, now that they hopefully know a little bit about how much the agencies of this country and the bureaucrats and the secretaries and all the people that follow them, of all the cabinet members in this executive branch, the kind of power they have to change the life of the individual and the life of the job producers and the job seekers in this country. and if we are going to give them that kind of control and that kind of power over people's

individual right, over -- lives, over employers' ability to make the profits necessary to hire and create new jobs, if we're going to allow them to have that power, just like anything else, someone has to have oversight over these people and take a look at what they're doing and see if it is to the good of the american people and the good of our country. and that's why we have the congressional review act. and in that congressional review act we get the chance to look at it. just because it hasn't been used but rarely does not mean it shouldn't be used when the number of regulations have grown by gee metic progressions in the last two years. when we create one bill, one bill, the health care bill, that was created in the last session of congress, creates 40 entities with rule making authority, 40 new entities that can create

rules that affect the individual life and the health care of the american people, we have one particular entity that will be able to say what treatment can and cannot be given to certain people. surely this house would want to at least take a look at those regulations. because it might mean life or death to an american citizen if we do not allow that. so it's important. have you come to join us on this? grab a microphone, mrs. ellmers, we'd love to have you. right there. give us your chart. come up here. where is it? which one is it? is this it? all right. we've probably got about five or 10 minutes. all right.

why don't you take a microphone and bring your chart up here and let's hear from you. all right. congresswoman ellmers from north carolina, we are pleased to have you here and we'd like to you explain what you want to show us here today. i yield you. mrs. ellmers: thank you so much, mr. chairman. and, mr. speaker. today i rise on behalf of the people of gardner, north carolina. they are faced with a very difficult situation these days, one that is threatening and actually as we speak basically shutting us down for bills. as you can see from the chart, i'll point out the red line there. that red line is essentially going through the town of gardner, north carolina. it's an extension of highway 540. and this is the proposed site

from the army corps of engineers. ass and as you can see if you look at the chart there are some other very colorful options to consider as well. however, those options go through areas of wetlands and things and the area that goes through gardner, north carolina, that's the option that they're looking at because it's the only option that is outside of any wetlands and out of any areas that would harm such things as the dwarf muscles. now, basically what we're faced with today is a situation where the town is shut down for business. right now businesses are not -- potential businesses wanting to relocate or set up shop or move to the area, individuals maybe wanting to move there, are reconsidering that choice because they see that there's a

potential highway going through the center of their community. which is kind of a ridiculous situation. many of the organizations that are involved right now have all said that this is not really a viable option and yet we continue to look at it. we continue to allow garner, north carolina, to be shut down for business, potential loss of jobs. we have individuals that live in garner, such as brenda and jerry summer, who are an elderly couple that have children and grandchildren who have moved back to garner to be near them. and they have the threat of having that highway go right through the middle of their living room. we also are faced with a situation, springfield baptist church, there for 140 years, 2,000 parishioners. they will literally lose their church and 50 acres of land.

this is continuing because of the clean water act and basically the army corps of engineers' refusal to remove the red line from consideration. we've met a with them, we've asked them to take that option off the table and to save the american taxpayers that expense of doing the study. they know it's not a viable option, they know it's going to hurt business, they know that there are potential other options there and yet we continue to look at it. i have the utmost respect for the army corps of engineers, but quite frankly this is a waste of american taxpayers' money and potential threat to business, continuing and continuing in garner, north carolina. all so that we can preserve a muscle, all so that we can preserve and route around wetlands. you can go anywhere in north carolina and it's pretty much considered a wetland except your

developed areas that are already in progress. i'm not against the highway, the loop being finished, but certainly there are other options that can be looked at. you can see there's an orange line, a blue line, a pink line that are all there, they all connect and these are all viable options. some of the other organizations that are involved in this is the north carolina turnpike authority who has already dropped three other options from consideration because of public protests in those towns about potential harm to the community. garner stands to lose a project worth of $9 million in investments and hundreds of jobs. investors are literally walking away while the town stands in limbo because of this potential project that's going to take place here. we cannot continue this.

this is what is happening. we must stand for the people of garner, north carolina, we must stand for the people of america who are continuously saying, let's use common sense. that's the issue here today. common sense. if we all know this is not going to be the project that's ultimately proposed, let's take it off the table, let's not spend american taxpayer dollars, let's preserve the business community of garner, north carolina, and all those folks, those good folks there, who are potentially going to lose their homes. let's do it now. let's not wait. this is a ridiculous situation and i think the american people have had just about enough of it. thank you, mr. chairman, so much for allowing me to stand for the people of garner, north carolina. mr. carter: the gentlelady would yield for a question. so if i understand you correctly, the main reason for this route is because of the

clean water act and endangered species act. mrs. ellmers: yes. that is correct. mr. carter: so is that a muscle you're saying? mrs. ellmers: it is. it is a particular muscle, let me find the name again, just so you're familiar with it, it is the dwarf wedge muscle. and apparently that dwarf wedge muscle is found down in the wetlands of the lower area there. so they have avoided that area and then there are some other wetlands that are there as well. you know, certainly there are ways that we can work around these issues and not go through an entire town that has been developed for years and years. mr. carter: this is the town right here. mrs. ellmers: yes, sir. mr. carter: they're going to go in and condemn all the town. mrs. ellmers: go right through, go right through the very middle of it. mr. carter:ky see why folks are upset about that. mrs. ellmers: and the thing is it's the potential for that highway to go through there but right now as we speak the town of garner is basically stuck. there's no growth. there's none whatsoever because

any potential business, any potential job that could be coming there is turning away from garner, north carolina, for this very reason. mr. carter: i can understand that. so if i'm a potential employer, that's one of the places i might look at, i look at this and say, wait a minute, i could buy the land, build my building and then here comes the corps of engineers and puts a highway right in the middle of my building. i think i'll wait or better yet i will go somewhere else. mrs. ellmers: that's what's happening. this is why the people of garner, north carolina, are outraged and rightfully so. this has been a situation now that has been hanging for a while. and it needs to be addressed, it needs to be addressed today and i have asked that all entities involved, all areas, let's all look at this, use some common sense and make the right choices and let's save the american

taxpayers some money. mr. carter: this is a good -- these regulations should be looked at by this house if they are available to be looked at. some of these may be long set on the books before we had this tool to examine regulations as they come out. but still, it's good for you as a representative of your folks in your district to come up and speak for the people. because that's how job. mrs. ellmers: that is. mr. carter: i'm going to reclaim my time because i think we're about to run out of it and i want to thank the speaker for this hour and i realize that i have like less than a minute left so i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. at this time, under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, for 30 minutes. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, one of the things that the american people are really upset about right now is gasoline is $3:50 in some parts of the country close to $4 a gallon. the president of the united states in his -- and his administration, for whatever reason is obstructing our ability to become energy independent. last february -- on february 17, judge -- u.s. district judge martin feldman, who gave the department of the interior information on the deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico earlier, he gave the administration 30 tais to rule seven deep -- 30 days to ewell eseven deepwater drilling

permits the ok. he took out a ban that caused a moratorium that would cause irreparable harm to companies along the gulf coast. but the thing that concerns me, we have the ability to become energy independent within a relatively short period of time. everybody would like to see us move toward alternative sources of energy and clean burning fuels to help the environment. i don't think anybody opposes that. the problem is, in the process, do we want to become more energy dependent on the rest of the world? we get between 25% and 30% of our energy from the middle east and anybody who has been watching the news at all knows that there's a war going on in libya, egypt is in turmoil. bahrain is having problems. there's potential problems in jordan and saudi arabia. now if something goes wrong

over there, and iran is trying to undermine us by under the covers doing everything they can to stop us from getting energy and to put us in a trick bag, the suez canal is bottled up, we could lose or have substantially delayed 30% of our energy. you can imagine what that would do to this place. the prohibition against drilling in the gulf of mexico takes away about 11% of our energy. and the president won't allow us to have permits in that area. now he says that he's concerned about it because of the environmental damage that was done by the oil spill down there when the derrick blew up. what isn't said is that the tankers that come from the middle east and from south america spill more oil, spill more oil than that -- than that

environmental tragedy that took place in the gulf spill. people don't realize that. now we can drill in an environmentally safe way and we can do it in a number of places in this country and move rapidly toward energy independence. we could drill in alaska, in the anwr, and people say in the environmental community, well, we're worried about the bears and small animal up. there. does anybody have any idea how big alaska is? it's 3 1/2 times the size of texas. thrnl only 500,000 or 600,000 people that live in alaska. the rest of that is wilderness except where we're drilling. if we drill in the anwr, we could produce a great amount of oil and energy that would make us less dependent on saudi arabia, the middle east, and the communist dictator in venezuela, mr. chavez. we're not doing what we should do to make sure we provide

energy for this country and make sure the cost of energy is low. so people can afford -- so employers can afford to hire more people. and the president is blocking this. ians why. the american people need to -- i can't understand why. the american people need to know this. we're going to see if everything goes south in the middle east, or the president of venezuela decides to cut us off, we'll see oil prices go up, up, up, and the cost of gas rein go to $3, $4, $5, $6 a gallon. fit gets to $6 a gallon, it's going to have a devastating impact on this economy. in fact, it already is having a devastating impact. if you talk to 18-wheeler truckers, people who haul goods and services all across this country, they'll tell you they can't afford to keep their prices for trucking on goods and services low if the price

of diesel fuel goes above $4 by very much a gallon. and yet it is about $4 a gallon right now and it's trending higher. if we have a problem in the middle east or in the gulf or in the south america, wherever we get oil, it's going to have a tremendous impact, not only on our ability to buy gasoline at the pump to provide oil for heating for our electrical companies to provide ctriety to keep our lights on but it's going to cost us more when we go to wal-mart, when we go to the grocery store, wherever we go to buy goods, foods, and services because the truckers who truck those goods across the country are going to have to pay more for their fuel and they pass that along to the consumer in higher prices system of this has a devastating impact on our economy because we depend too much on foreign oil. now another thing i think everybody in this country ought to know, mr. speaker, is we have the largest reserves of

coal in the world which could be converted into oil if we use coal to liquid technology and we could get as many as five million barrels of oil a day in the not too distant future and the amount of oil we could get out of coal shale is up to eight trillion barrels of oil. in north and south dakota, they found one of the biggest oil reserves in the whole world that we could use to bring down the price of energy in this country but we can be the drill there because the president and the administration and the environmental protection agency and the department of energy is blocking that. now i know a lot of people around the country say we've got to be concerned about the environment, and we do. we ought to be transitioning into these other technologies. but that's going to take 10, 15, 20 years. to get a nuclear plant up takes forever because you have to go through all the permits, all the governmental regulations, sure we could get there, but

it's going to take time. and in that interim period, we are dependent on fossil fuels and we're getting those from the middle east and south america and from the gulf of mexico when we can drill there so it's extremely important, mr. speaker, that we pay attention to this and send a very strong signal to the administration that it's time for us to get on with drilling here in the united states and becoming energy independent. i want to talk about one more thing i think is extremely important, that deals with our southern border between us and mexico. the president of mexico told president obama that he did not want any government agents from the united states, the f.b.i. or d.e.a., to be able to carry weapons when they're in mexico. we just had one of our agents shot to death in mexico about two weeks ago. it was one of our special drug

agents that we had in mexico and they had no ability to defend themselves. one of them was killed, the other was severely wounded. and along the texas-american border, we have all kinds of problems, we've had border patrol agent just shot recently and killed, we have farmers all over the place and ranchers down there who are scared to death to go out of their houses because these people are coming across the border, drug dealers, people bringing illegal ail generals -- aliens in, some of them are selling their ramples. we had one fellow down there who has had a ranch his family for over 100 years, 6,000 acres he's had and he's sold his farm, joe agolar sold his ranch because he said he's had enough. they're going across his ranch every day. we had another rancher down

there who found a cache of markets on his land, he turned it over to the drug enforce amount agency, days later, thugs came into his house, beat him and his wife half to death and said if you do this again, we'll kill you. how would you like to live in that kind of environment? you say that's right on the border that can't happen here. 80 miles north of the mexican-american border, 80 mile into the united states right now, we have signs posted it's not safe for you as an american citizen to go south of here between that 80-mile marker and mexico. can you imagine that? americans are afraid to even walk on the american soil because of drug dealers, thugs, illegal aliens, people who are transporting them into the country who might kill them. we had one border patrol agent who was shot and killed about a week ago and when he was shot and killed, we found out that he was told these drug dealers or illegal aliens or people who

are bringing illegals in to stop and since they wouldn't stop, our border patrol agents were told they had to use bean bags, get, they had to use bean bags to be fired at these people who crossed the worder illegally who may have been drug dealers or whatever. the fellows they were pursuing turned around with ak-47's, an automatic weapon with high velocity bullets, and shot and killed this one border patrol agent and the president of the united states has told them that the first thing that they should use if they suspect somebody of bringing illegal drugs in and they can't get them to stop are these bean bags. now, i can't imagine anything like that. these people are risking their lives, day in and day out, some of them are being killed, some are being taunted day in and day out and they can't even

defend themselves down there, a and president obama, along with the president of mexico ageed that our d.e.a. agents when they go bay across the border into mexico kvent carry weapons. how many people do you think that are trying to enforce our drug laws and are sent into foreign countries to defend this country against drug dealers and drug cartels, how many do you think will want to go down into those areas when they can't even protect themselves? would you want to do it? i wouldn't want to do it. i want a weapon so that i can at least try to survive in the event they try to kill me. unfortunately, the president of the united states said in the last few days that he will not allow any of our agents, f.b.i., cri cray -- c.i.a., d.e.a., any of them to carry a weapon when they go into mexico because the president of mexico, mr. calderon, said he doesn't think we should. we're in a war down there on that border. talk to the people in texas

they will tell you. there is a war between us and the drug dealers and the thugs that are coming across that line into our country. and there's a high suspicion that we're seeing al qaeda and taliban type terrorists coming across the board entire the united states as well. there was an article that was written just recently, i'd like to read part of it, mr. speaker, it says in texas, nearly 8,200 farms and ranches back up to the mexican border. the men and women who live and work on those properties say they're under attack from the same drug cartels blamed for thousands of murders in mexico. it's a war, make no mistake about it. the texas agricultural commissioner, todd staple, said, and it's happening on american soil. in this country. texas farmers and ranchers produce more cotton and more cattle than any other state in the union so staples is concerned that this war could eventually impact our food supply and cause a threat to

our national security. to raise awareness, commissioner staples launched a website, protectyourtexasborder.com. it's a place where frustrated and scared farmers and ranchers can share their story. one farmer who asked not to be identified, said it's common for him to see undocumented people coming across his property. he says he just drives away when he sees it. he said i've learned to deal with it and become numb to it. we can't even defend americans in this country in texas and arizona. another farmer, joe, who i talked about earlier, said you have to either beat them or join them and i decided to do neither he sold his farm of 6,000 acres that his family had for 100 years. our farmers an ranchers can't afford their own security detail, staples said. we're going to become more