full, it will be a negative on your report. but it really depends on the exact reporting. if it is get paid as agreed, it will not hurt. you " -- should try to find out exactly how they will report that settlement, the exact phrasing, because it will make a difference. host: joan goldwasser, a senior reporter at kiplinger's personal finance magazine. that is all for "washington journal" today. we will have to the house floor now. considering a bill to set up a committee to review epa regulations and recommend which rules to eliminate and it also delays implementation of rules dealing with mercury and toxic emissions. there are a dozen amendments pending. reby appoint the honorable renee l. ellmers to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message.

from the madam secretary. the secretary: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the messenger: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 633 an act to prevent fraud in small business contracting, and for other purposes, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the house will recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. . the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, do you

know the muffin man, the muffin man, the muffin man? yes, i know the muffin man but he doesn't live on drery lane. he's growing rich on selling $16 muffins to the department of justice on justice lane. the department of justice's inspector general states that at only 10 conferences the department of justice spent almost $500,000 on refreshments. that's $50,000 per conference for just refreshments. and that includes $4,200 for a handful of muffins, 250. now, madam speaker, how come these critters costs $16 a piece? these are some high-dollar muffins that the justice department is buying for its conferences and refreshments. where do you even find a muffin that costs $16? i've never seen one, madam

speaker. maybe they're shipped in from a special bakery in france with some secret ingredient. my favorite bakery in texas, rao's in beaumont, says these things should be $2 a piece. so why is the justice department with all those fancy lawyers letting the muffin man get away with this price gouging? because the muffin -- because the government doesn't care. it lives high on the hog with taxpayer's money. so, madam speaker, do you know the muffin man, the muffin man? i know the muffin man, and the government should quit spending somebody else's money to keep the muffin man rolling in the dough and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. as washington appears to be

trapped in partisan gridlock, sliding to budget paralysis and the potential of another government shutdown looming, there is one particular area that doesn't get the attention it merits. even as it is the key to our economic recovery. this is our serious and ever-growing infrastructure deficit. america's roads, bridges, water systems, transit, aviation ports, all are in serious need of repair. the american society of civil engineers has over the years given grades every five years to the state of infrastructure in the united states. and sadly, the latest survey showed that we're still getting a failing grade and the gap necessary to bring these

resources up to standard is growing larger. over $2.3 trillion for five years to make it in a reasonable state of repair. for example, we lose six billion gallons of water every day through leaks in aging pipes and sewer mains throughout the country. this is enough water to fill 9,000 olympic-sized swimming pools if you stacked them end to end you could swim from washington, d.c., to pittsburgh in the amount that is leaked every single day. but the -- it doesn't end there. in terms of the sad state of rail, the deteriorating bridges, here's an opportunity for us to step forward dealing with a serious challenge that threatens america's

productivity, threatens america's environmental and physical health and put hundreds of thousands of americans to work at family wage jobs virtually overnight. madam speaker, in times past, investment in infrastructure has been something that's captured the vision for the united states but more than that it has been part of how we have repaired some of our problems fiscally. remember in 1982 ronald reagan approved as part of his budget stabilization program a five cent a gallon ina user fee for gasoline to help put the budget in balance and get needed infrastructure. in 1993 as part of the can -- of the clinton program that led to the first balanced budgets we have seen in decades, every

year the deficit declined until the last three years he was in office. three successive years of increasing budget surplus while we had an unprecedented increase in jobs, they included a modest gas tax increase. there are a whole host of areas for user fees. i have bipartisan legislation for water trust fund that would deal with the problem i mentioned a moment ago. we have the superfund tax on the petro chemical industry to pay for the damage to the environment that they created that expired in 1995 and has mott been renewed but we still have the superfunds to clean up, pushing the burdens on state and local governments and on businesses that is required to spend money that wasn't their fault giving the petrochemical industry a pass.

there's an opportunity, madam speaker, as the supercommittee is meeting for congress to step up in a bipartisan way to have resources to help rebuild and renew america. we're falling behind the chinese. we're falling behind the indians, the brazilians, the european unions. even while unemployment in the building trades is 20% or more from coast to coast. there's an opportunity here for us to be able to stabilize the budget, deal with the infrastructure deficit, put hundreds of thousands of americans to work virtually overnight and maybe, just maybe work together to heal the frayed political process here in washington, d.c. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes.

mr. jones: thank you, madam speaker. you know, madam speaker, it is so ironic it had a the american people are hurting in many, many ways but especially those from my district. irene. all the way up to vermont. and fires in texas and tornadoes and yet we can't come together as two different parties to find an agreement to increase the funding for fema so that they can help these victims of disasters. and yet we can find $10 billion a month to send to a corrupt leader in afghanistan so that he can wear and robes and his caps and american kids can die, lose their legs and arms. i don't understand why this congress and the president of the united states do not understand that it's time to bring our troops home. american people are hurting in

many, many ways. and the folly of the last day here in washington where we can not come together to increase the funding for fema is absolutely unacceptable, unacceptable to the people of this country. i was listening to c-span coming in today and it was just really somewhat ironic of the people that are so angry with congress, both parties, actually, and cannot figure out why we are not doing what's necessary to fix the economy, create jobs, fix the infrastructure that my friend from oregon just talked about. oh, yes, but we can still find $10 billion a month for mr. karzai. let's fix his roads in afghanistan. let's train his troops to be -- to be -- his people to be troops and policemen. and, madam speaker, that brings me to this poster i brought down on the floor today.

too little girls, stephanie and erin, their daddy, sergeant kenneth balwin, and colonel palmer, stationed at cherry point, in my district, was sent to afghanistan to train afghans to be policemen. one night they were having dinner, the trainees, the colonel and the sergeant and one trainee pulled out a pistol and killed both of them. what is ironic is the day before, sergeant baldiff and colonel palmer was killed, sergeant bardiff called his wife and said, i don't trust them, i don't trust them, i don't trust any of them. so these two little girls are standing at their daddy's funeral in arlington and you can see in their faces, madam speaker, a look of pain, a look

of misunderstanding of what has happened. they don't understand what has happened. so, madam speaker, i hope we in congress will find the will to encourage president obama to bring our troops home because secretary gates has already said and been recorded that we will be there until 2015. how many young americans have to die the next four years to prop up a corrupt government? it makes no sense. i hope the american people will rally behind those of us in both parties who want to bring our troops home and let's get them home before 2015. madam speaker, i close this way as i always do. god, please bless our men and women in uniform. god, please bless the men and women in uniform. god, in your loving arms, hold the children who died in iraq and afghanistan.

i'll ask god to give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama to do what is right in the eyes of god. and three times i will say. god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i'm taking the floor today to talk about folks. the problem of housing foreclosures in this country continues to be one of the central reasons why this economy is not moving forward. while a lot of this economic wreckage is avoidable, this congress continues to fiddle while the american housing market burns.

americans are being tossed out in the street and many of them don't need to be and we can't help them. we can help fix the housing market so that millions of american families can stay in their homes and others can have a smooth transition into renting. we could help, but this congress is doing nothing. millions of homeowners are suffering through the worst recession in 100 years and the republican majority is not doing one single thing to help them. just look at this map next to me. this is a snapshot of foreclosures across this country. the dark red areas are where the worst places are, but you see it covers everybody in the country. now, there isn't a district that isn't affected by this crisis. the housing market doesn't care about your politics. three years after the wall

street meltdown, millions of americans are still facing foreclosure. one in four homeowners in this country is under water, and home prices continue to drop. while the housing market continues to steadily destruct and millions of americans are pushed into poverty, this congress isn't doing anything to stop it. instead of fixing the economy, today we're going to debate a bill, a republican bill that attacks public health and children. . the republican priority is not foreclosures, it's to make sure that every american is breathing more mercury and toxins. when the democrats were in charge, it was different. 2003 thought you should be able to write down mortgage principal in bankruptcy and modify mortgages more easily and get lenders to the bargaining table to avoid foreclosure. but the last congress,

republican senators stopped all that and in this congress the republicans in the house want to make sure we don't do anything. instead they cut programs for foreclosures, affordable housing. instead of taking actions, republicans say the market will fix it. in the market we trust. not in god we trust. in the market we trust. that everything will be better. but we are losing, we are long past the healthy correction, the damage being done is completely unavoidable. make no mistake, republican economic philosophy is pushing millions of americans into the street. middle class americans. it's important to remember it was the banks that caused this crisis. well, we bail out the baverpbings and how did they -- bail out the banks, and how did they thank the american people for the bailout? the banks went into foreclosure overdrive. they robeo signed foreclosures and signed fraudulent documents

as fast as they could. f.d.r. once said take a method, try it, if it fails, admit it frankly and try another your honor. but by all means try something. we can act by just reducing the principal on all underwater homes to fair market value, $71 billion would be injected into the economy. every homeowner would save about $6,500 a year in payments, and millions of new jobs would be created. banks are still sitting on $1 trillion in wash by using 7% of that money there would be millions of people kept out of poverty. the banks can afford it, and it would be something we seem to have lost all sight of in congress. it would be fair. we could restart the economy by helping homeowners. we can come out of this economic crisis by putting

responsible homeowners on solid ground. the map says it all. homeowners are struggling in every district of every member of this congress. we can fix this foreclosure disaster. we can help american families who play by the rules, we could start action today and help the middle class. but no, what are we going to do? we are going to fool around out here about the rules of the e.p.a. protecting people against toxins and mercury. this congress has lost its way. it needs a change and it's going to come because all those people are in foreclosure in this country. when the next election comes are going to ask what did the republicans in the house do? and the answer is, nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, for five minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. i came to washington nine

months ago with the hope that we would restore a little bit of common sense and a whole lot of spending control to washington, d.c. i also came to washington, d.c., having never heard of an ecoambassador. now, i heard of ambassadors, and i am familiar with the environment, but i had never heard of an ecoambassador. indeed, i had never heard of an ecoambassador until just a few short weeks ago when our environmental protection agency that has done so much damage to our economy, so much damage to kansas fourth congressional district and our farmers and manufacturers and our families, our environmental protection agency decided that at this time of massive federal deficits we needed a new program to create ecoambassadors. ecoambassadors, each of which will be given $6,000 of your money. ecoambassadors which in exchange for that money will come to washington, d.c., and go back to their home places.

and work for 20 weeks, 20 weeks for $6,000. part-time at that for their internship program. and when you read, when you read the requirements to be eligible to receive an ecoambassador internship program, you'll be fascinated to see that it's an ideologically driven program. students who apply must have a strong interest in environmental justice, social justice, and other issues relating to environmental health disparities and/or -- in health, volunteer, or employment settings. this is a liberals only policy. the environmental justice internship is administered with your taxpayer dollars. we don't need a program like this at any time. we certainly don't need it at this time. so i have offered a bill, h.r. 2876, the e.p.a. nondiscrimination in employment and student act. it simply says this, it says, when you apply for employment

in the federal government, we are not going to seek to find out with you agree with this administration's radical environmental agenda. we are not going to seek to find out if you have worked as a community organizer. all we are going to ask is that you are qualified for the position. there are many efforts and many concerns about environmental disparities across the country. i share those concerns, but our e.p.a. and our justice department already have many remedies for folks who feel like they have been discriminated against. what we don't need is yet another federal program aimed at trying to solve a problem that we know can't be solved in washington, d.c. i'll close with this thought, this is a small program, the total dollars expended in the scale of our massive federal deficit are very, very small, but it's symtomatic of a place, washington, d.c., that has become completely disconnected from america and commonsense values. the values we all have in kansas. we don't need echo ambassadors,

we don't need this program, and i would ask my colleagues to support this legislation to eliminate it. with that i yield back my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. it's not too late. that's my message to palestinian authority president abbas who has announced his intention to seek unilateral palestinian statehood at the united nations this friday. it's not too late to abandon this reckless route, engage in direct negotiations with israeli prime minister netanyahu, and choose the path to peace. there is only one road to a peace agreement, and that is through direct talks between learls and palestinians. -- israelis and palestinians. this is clearly outlined in the oslo peace agreement which states it must be resolved in direct two-party negotiations. anything outside of these direct talks, particularly this palestinian appeal for u.n. recognition, is a dangerous

digression from the known way forward. in addition to hearing from the tract toward two states, a status upgrade at this time would allow palestinians to pursue cases in israel in international institutions such as the international criminal court. such institutions could even be used to request advisory rulings on final status issues, further circumventing two-party negotiations. the u.s. has also made significant investments in bolstering palestinian security and economic prosperity. all in an effort to enable the palestinians to make the difficult decisions necessary to move toward peace. this appeal to the u.n. and rejection of direct two-party talks directly undermines considerable american efforts in investments in the peace deal. abbas and the palestinians need to come back to the negotiating table and it is the u.s. that needs to lead them back and spearhead negotiations. as a true and steadfast friend

to israel, there's never been a more vital time for america to stand strong with our ally. with the excitement and hope of the arab spring has also come a great deal of uncertainty. uncertainty about the strength of the relationship between israel and turkey. uncertainty about the willingness of the egyptians to hold true to their promises under the benchmark 1979 peace treaty. uncertainty about the security of the sinai, uncertainty surrounding the speed with which iran marches toward a nuclear bomb. and uncertainty about the number of rockets being stockpiled by hezbollah and hamas aimed at the homes of israeli citizens. there is one thing that must be never uncertainty, america's support for israel. a threat to israel's security or legitimacy is a threat to america. it will not stand by and let israel face these challenges alone. upon her founding over six decades ago, the united states was the first nation to recognize israel, and since

that recognition, the special bond between israel and the u.s. has only grown stronger. on the bedrock of the mutual principals of freedom, justice, and peace. now is the time to stand with our old friend and lead the way to peace. it is moments like these that test our mettle. it is moments like these that are recorded in our history books. and it's moments like these where we must show our leadership. america must do everything in its power to end this perilous palestinian -- palestinian -- palestinian bid to statehood and get direct negotiations of the tute parties back on track and president abbas must know there will be consequences for choosing the path of confrontation over that of negotiation. the course to unilateral recognition is not free. the israeli-palestinian peace process is at a pivotal crossroad. the palestinian can choose to

pursue the dead end track toward recognition or adjust their course in their wrong-headed u.n. bid and sit down at the negotiating table with israel. the choice is theirs. it's not too late to choose the path toward peace. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, this generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies. californians have had to cut back to the point that their electricity consumption per capita is now lower than that of guam, luxembourg, and aruba. what's the administration's solution? interior secretary ken salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the klamath river capable of

producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet. enough for about 155,000 homes. now, why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy? well, they say it's necessary to increase the salmon population. the thing is, we did that a long time ago by building the iron gate fish hatchery. the iron gate fish hatchery produces five million salmon smolet every year, 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn. the problem is, they don't include them in the population count. and to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the iron gate dam, we will lose the iron gate fish hatchery and the five million salmon smolt it produces annually. declining salmon runs are not unique to the klamath. we have seen them up and down the northwest pacific coast over the last 10 years as a

result of the naturally occurring pacific oscillation, cold water currents that fluctuate over a 10-year cycle between the pacific northwest and alaska. in fact, during the same decade that salmon runs have declined throughout the pacific northwest, they have exploded in alaska. we are now at the end of that cycle. the cost of this madness is currently pegged at a staggering $290 million, all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers. that's just the cost of removing the dams. consumers will face permanently higher prices for replacement power which, we are told, will be wind and solar. well, not only are wind and solar many times more expensive, wind and solar require equal amounts of reliable standard bye power which is precisely what -- stand by power which is precisely what the dams provide. we are told yes, it may be expensive, but it will cost less to retrofit dams to meet cost prohibitive environmental

retirements. if that's the case -- requirements. if that's the case maybe we should rethink those requirements not squander more than a quarter million dollars to destroy desperately needed hydroelectric dams. here's a modest suggestion to address the salmon population, count the hatchery fish. we are told this is the result of a local agreement between farmers and stakeholders. mr. speaker, everybody knows that the klamath agreement was the result of local farmers coming to exstorgs by environmental groups that threatened lawsuits to shut off their water. and obviously the so-called stakeholders don't include the ratepayers and taxpayers that will pay dearly for the loss of these dams. indeed, local voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly repudiated the agreement and the politicians responsible for it. their locally elected county board of supervisors vigorously

opposes it. finally the administration boasts 1,00 short-term jobs that will be created to tear down these dams. just imagine how many jobs we would create if we tour down the hoover dame or duluth, minnesota. madam speaker, amids a spending spree, amidst spiraling prices and chronic shortages, to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at enormous cause is insane, and to claim this is good for the economy gives us chilling insight to the breathtakingly bad judgment that is misguiding our nation from the white house. the president was right about one thing when he spoke here several weeks ago, 14 months is a long time to wait to correct the problem. . fortunately the administration will need congressional approval to move forward with this lunacy and that will require action by this house. earlier this year the house voted to put a stop to this

nonsense. i trust it will exercise that same good judgment as the administration proceeds with its folly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to celebrate a very, very special birthday. it is the 50th birthday of the united states peace corps. an incredible organization that was started by president john f. kennedy and a whole lot of people thought this nation had an opportunity to reach out to the men and women of america, provide them with a challenge to go to -- out to the world to seek peace, to work for peace and to help developing nations meet their needs. whether it be in education, community development, economic development or other activities.

and so it has been more than 200,000 americans, young and old, men and women have become peace corps volunteers. they have served in 139 countries around the world and today they serve in over 70 countries. it's been a terrific program. it has presented the very best face of america to millions of people around the world. today, there are leaders of many countries around this world that have been taught by peace corps volunteers in their high schools, in their grammar schools or universities. they have a very special understanding of america. they know americans. they know that americans have a big heart and they have a desire to see progress, economic and social progress in every country of this world. and today we celebrate 50 years. we celebrate over 200,000 peace

corps volunteers that have served around the world, and we celebrate those who have been in the administration, the directors, the country directors, the doctors, the nurses and the others who have been part of this enormously important part of america. as those peace corps volunteers return to america, it's now clear in recent polling that they have continued to serve. they serve as volunteers at twice the rate of other americans, and they are found in the schools. they are found in the community programs and they're even found in congress, as strange as that might seen. but nonetheless they have served in many, many ways and they continue to do so. earlier today i met two peace corps volunteers who were in the very first effort in tanzania. they returned some 40 years later -- i'm going to turn that

around. they actually served in afghanistan in the early 1960's and then came back 40 years later to serve once again as peace corps volunteers. and what we have found over these many years that once you have become a peace corps volunteer you never stop laboring for peace, wherever it may be. and so today we sell braille the 50th anniversary of -- so we celebrate the 50th anniversary of a remarkable program put forth by president john f. kennedy, the idea that americans can reach out to the whole world and serve wherever that need might be. happy birthday, peace corps. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, for five minutes. mr. dold: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any

manifestation of approval or disapproval or proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: thank you, madam speaker, and i, too, want to send my happy birthday out to the peace corps and certainly it's a great day to celebrate that birthday. madam speaker, what we are seeing at the united nations this week is a brazen rejection of the basic principle of a negotiated peace. tomorrow, mahmoud abbas will deliver a speech at the united nations where he is expected to formally announce a resolution to unilaterally seek the declaration of a palestinian state. while we are ultimately committed to a future where the two states, israel and palestine, are able to live side by side in long-term peace and security. while all of us in this chamber who heard from prime minister

netia hew about a two-state nation, the question i have and the question which everyone will be voting on this issue should ask yourself, are the palestinians ready to make peace? this is the question key and it's what prime minister netia hew laid out in his remarks right here in -- netia hew laid out in this chamber. it's not the question of a palestinian state. it has always been about the existence of a jewish state, and that is what this conflict is about. madam speaker, this unilateral declaration of independence is a direct challenge to the united states and the efforts and the dollars we have committed in recent years to promote a real lasting peace. it is fundamental that peace cannot be imposed from the outside. it can only be the aid in jerusalem, in ramallah. there are too many difficult

issues which can only adequately be addressed through direct negotiations which must be mutually accepted by governments on both sides. and most importantly which must be ratified by the people who live there. without these vital elements you don't have peace. you couldn't even increase the chances for peace down the road. rather, you undermine the prospects for achieving it in the future. this is the point of this unilateral declaration. where is the commitment to peace on the palestinian side? palestinian officials have made it clear that this unilateral effort is another means of isolating israel and escalating the conflict against her. palestinian officials have made it clear that they seek to advance this bid so that they can attack israel through the international legal system, including taking actions against israel and the international court of justice. the tragic reality, madam

speaker, is that israel lives in a very dangerous region of the world, and the israeli people absolutely have grave security concerns that should not simply be tossed aside by countries that are allies of the united states of america. the israeli people are surrounded by hostile neighbors that want to drive israel out of existence. we here in america must understand the reality on the ground and the threats israel faces each and every day. israel is a peace-seeking democracy, and the israeli people simply want to live in peace and security. iran has its proxies closing in. hamas in gaza. to the south there's the muslim brotherhood. now gaining significant power in egypt. hezbollah is in the north, and in the northeast is syria led by had a sad. the -- hasad. the recent downgrade in turkey -- the instability of the sinai

is of concern. this is a dangerous neighborhood, and recent events are bringing it to sharp view israel's daily reality. increased isolation and living under siege. as we witness with the flotilla last year, with the storming of israel's embassy in cairo two weeks ago or with turkey's new aagrees -- aggressive rhetoric. events in the middle east can easily spiral out of control and lead to outcomes that nobody desires. fortunately the members of this chamber have made it clear to the entire world that we will not sit idly by during the continued delit jit matization -- delegitimatizazion of

israel. they are trying to undermine peace. i am pleased that the president is committed to vetoing this unilateral attempt in the security council if it does come to a vote and i appreciate his administration's focus on this particular critical issue. we must continue in our efforts to urge the nations of the world to stand with the united states, support peace efforts in the middle east and oppose this resolution. peace between israel and her palestinian neighbors cannot be achieved unless both sides sit and find common ground. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, there was an article in "the washington post" earlier this week that we should all find very unsettling and disturbing.

we know that in recent years the pentagon has increasingly used unmanned grown aircraft to carry out violent acts of war and frankly that's bad enough. but now there's a new and even frightening technology in the works. it's called lethal autonomy. and under the system the drones would no longer be remotely operated and controlled by actual human beings. the lethal autonomy drones will be computer programs to carry out their deadly mission independently. no human hand providing, steering and guiding. i can't even begin to wrap my hand around the red flags associated with this experiment in robotics. software can break down. it can be hacked. furthermore, computers don't have a conscious. they are not nimble.

they can't make snap decisions based on new information or ethical consideration. they're programmed to do what they do without judgment, discretion or scrupeles. you can just imagine, or i can, any way, massivelyian atrocities thanks to robot -- a robot drone raging out of control. thankfully a group called the international committee for robot arms control is speaking up and making these points. pointing out that if we have a treaty banning land mines, why not one that outlaws these automatic killer drones? according to "the post" the military has began to grabble with the implications of this -- grapple with the implications of this technology. well, i can really suggest that they continue grappling boffer using these technologies -- before using these technologies and the unpredictable

consequences. one advocate of these new drones believes it's possible to program them to comply with international law regarding the conduct of hostilities. we all -- i'm serum skeptical. we can't even get the last president of the united states to understand and abide by the geneva convention. i don't know how we're going to get a robot to do it. madam speaker, the increasing dehumanization of warfare is part of a terrorfying trend. somehow it's easier to kill one another when we have computers and machines to carry it out for us when we don't have to stare our own may ham in the face. -- mayheim in the face. i believe we should be using our knowledge and ingenuity to give the civilian economy a --

the boost it needs to create good jobs for hardworking middle-class americans and to create a smarter response to world conflict. all this money we're funneling to defense contractors to devise ever more sophisticated ways to kill one another must be reinvested in alternatives to warfare and nonviolent ways to resolving conflict. that's what my smart security plan does. i've discussed this many, many times in this very spot. it's called smart security. it defines military force as the very, very last resort, and it directs energy and resources toward diplomacy, democracy promotion, development and peaceful ways of engaging with the rest of the world. madam speaker, in two weeks time we will have been at war for a full decade.

more than 6,000 americans have died. 10,000 innocent afghans and iraqis have been killed for the cause of their so-called liberation. many, many more of our own troops have been harmed and will always be living with the results of their injuries. . the time is now. the time is to stop building machines that can kill more efficiently and start bringing our troops home. i yield back the rest of -- remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, for five minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. we continue to suffer from an unemployment rate of over 10%, and america saw zero job growth in the month of august. our nation has a jobs crisis.

so why is the obama administration making it so difficult to create jobs? not only do we have a jobs crisis, but we also have a debt crisis. but these two things are interconnected, and we certainly should not make one worse while making the other better. the president has outlined his $447 billion jobs plan and it's essentially stimulus number two. it's the same recycled ideas that clearly didn't work from the last $800 billion stimulus. and at the same time the president wants to pay for his plan with $1.5 trillion in new taxes. now, it's estimated that small business owners would pay over half the taxes raised under this proposal. ultimately hitting our employers the hardest and

creating an even worse environment for private sector job growth. tax increases destroy jobs. they are not an option. now, there are some issues we agree on. for example, infrastructure funding. that's an appropriate function of government. and something we could do to boost a sagging economy. but the problem is mistrust. with the president's first stimulus, little went to actual infrastructure development. now, we agree that we must move forward on the three free trade agreements by passing those agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea, we'll increase competitiveness of american manufacturers and increase 250,000 american jobs. while we could find common ground on a few things, the president continues to show reluctance on impacting entitlement program solvency. his proposal seeks to

strengthen the independent payment advisory board which was created by obamacare. this board of un-elected bureaucrats was given way too much authority in the first place to determine what benefits are covered and how much physicians are paid. the best way to control cost in medicare is to increase choice and competition not by empowering the group of un-elected bureaucrats. the obama administration has created a triple threat of out-of-control spending, excessive regulations, and higher taxes, and these three things have resulted in an environment that has destroyed the confidence and prevented job creators from hiring. washington must create an environment favorable to job creation and focus on removing this triple threat. first we must continue to fight to rein in washington's unrestrained spending.

this fall the congress will deal with a balanced budget agreement which would finally force washington to live within its means. and do what families, businesses, and local and state governments are already required to do and that is balance their bubts -- budgets. we must focus on regulatory relief. just recently the house passed a bill that would prohibit the national labor relations board from dictating where an employer can and cannot locate jobs in the united states. employers need to be allowed to invest in the state that offers the best economic climate for job creation. and this week we are going to vote on the train act. the obama e.p.a. has imposed unnecessary and burdensome regulations on businesses, and we want to determine how those regulations affect electricity prices, fuel prices, and unemployment. the train act will help uncover exactly how much the e.p.a. is

costing mississippi consumers, farmers and small businesses and state and local governments. these are just a few examples of the frustrating regulations that have come out of the obama administration. lastly, we must concentrate on tax reform. the joint committee has the opportunity to lay the foundation for fundamental tax reform, but they must not enact tax increases. the american people don't need or want more solutions from the federal government. they want the federal government to get out of their way. by tackling our spending problems, removing excess regulations, and guaranteeing that taxes will not increase, we will unleash the american economy and give businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, for five minutes.

ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. as founder of the congressional out-of-poverty caucus, i rise today to continue sounding the alarm about the tide of poverty sweeping across this country. last week the united states census bureau released their annual report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the united states. 2010. it reveals a disturbing but unsurprising spike in the poverty rate from 14.3% in 2009 to a staggering 15.1% in 2010. in 2010, 46 million people lived in poverty in america. that is essentially the populations of california and michigan combined living in poverty in america. it's really moral outrage that in the richest country in the world so many americans are facing or living in poverty, lacking economic opportunity

and economic security. shamefully our children bear the greatest burden. in 2010, 22% of one in five children live in poverty. that's in america. and poverty continues to hit communities of color much harder as the facts show. in 2010 the poverty rate for whites rose to 9.9%. the poverty rate for african-americans rose to 27.4%. the poverty rate for latinos rose to 26.6%. and for asian pacific americans, the 2010 poverty rate of 12.1% remained the same. the massive poverty crisis as we are facing, it didn't happen overnight. the poverty rates began to rise during the bush administration and eight years of failed

economic policy wiped out all of the gains made during the clinton years. the co-chairs of the out-of-poverty caucus saw this day coming, and while little attention has been placed on the poor, we are determined to prick the conscience of this congress and to act to stem the tide of poverty across america. the members of the congressional out-of-poverty caucus sent a letter asking the joint select committee on deficit reduction more commonly known as the supercommittee, to stay in line with deficit reduction prior agreements of the past by not cutting programs that provide basic human services. the safety net. of course now more and more americans need the safety net. we must not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. and unfortunately middle income people now are falling into the ranks of the poor. as many of us know, millions of

people are just one paycheck away from poverty. we really can turn the tide on poverty. the solution to boost this stagnating economy, reason duesing our long-term deficit, and lifting americans out of the crisis of poverty is really the same, we must invest in creating more stable, living-wage jobs. in fact, the most effective anti-poverty program is an effective jobs program. that is why congress must immediately pass the president's american jobs act to begin the work of creating jobs, reducing poverty, and jump-starting our economy. poverty rates have increased in rural and urban communities throughout the country. the american dream has turned into a nightmare for millions. this is a crisis. but we must turn the tide and we must start today. so i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop

playing politics and to act on jobs now. we can and we must act urgently to turn the tide of poverty sweeping across the nation. a tide really that knows no party affiliations. thank you. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, for five minutes. mr. southerland: madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. southerland: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today with great disappointment, great disappointment in the administration's misguided agenda on job creation and deficit reduction. you see, i have been a -- in a family that has created jobs for generations. shortly after world war ii my grandfather wanted to create an opportunity for his family. he wanted to create an opportunity to make a

difference in his community. so with a sixth grade education, with $3,000 of borrowed money, and a dream, to make a difference, he did what small businesses do naturally when they do not have the impediments of the federal government. he created jobs. because that's -- his dream, his vision included that. to make a difference. to give other people an opportunity to forge a brighter and better future for them and their families. it wasn't a self-serving dream. it was a dream to serve others. during those decades following world war ii, we saw that same example all across this great nation. people doing what people are created to do, make a difference. it is not government's responsibility to create a job through a bill. it is government's responsibility to create an environment, an environment

that produces certainty. an environment that a small business owner has the guarantee, he knows what his taxes are going to be, he knows what his fees are going to be, he knows what his regulations are going to be, not just in six months or 12 months, but for years. and that creates certainty. i had never served in elected office before being sworn in as a member of this house in january. i went from small business to congress. so i bring with me that understanding that if government gets out of the way, then we can do what americans do better than any country in the world. we will make our communities a better place, and, yes, because of our benevolence, we will make the world a better place. but it is with great disappointment when the president came to this chamber and the president introduced his plan, i was saddened.

yes, there were some things that i agreed we need to do. the free trade agreements. we are still waiting for those free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. we are waiting. there was agreement on tax reform. there was agreement on payroll tax reduction to give small businesses more money, to give individuals more money in their paycheck. we agree there. but if you look deeper into this bill, you will see, unfortunately, more of the same. this jobs bill creates a brand new permanent government-owned bureaucracy. as a matter of fact, it's a corporation. the president's american infrastructure financing authority, a solely owned subsidiary of the federal government, it is not time for the federal government to create corporations. corporations that have chief

executive officers and chief financial officers, risk officers, chief compliance officers, chief operating officers, chief leppeding officers, general counsel, board of directors, lending money, lending money with terms out to 35 years. now, unfortunately this is insanity. this sounds so much like the first stimulus and the first stimulus we know with 35% of those funds having yet to be spent, we now know that our unemployment numbers, we were promised would not go over 8%. matter of fact, the administration claimed that unemployment numbers by this time would be 6.5%. we all know, we all know that is not true. as a matter of fact in my home state of florida we are talking -- we are living in 10.7% unemployment. last year we spent most of the year at 12%. historic unemployment numbers.

unfortunately, insanity when you do the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results seems to be the order of the day. and that is not what the american people want right now. they want certainty. they want certainty to be able to work hard, to have honest dealings, and to know that after they work hard and they are honest that they will have a brighter future when they wake up tomorrow. they deserve that. they deserve that. unfortunately this plan goes in the opposite direction. so it bothers me that with so it bothers me with the regulations we face, the cloud of uncertainty just grows. madam speaker, i say in closing, business has never been asked to do more with less and they clearly know less certainty. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you. i rise today as i come each week to share yet another horrific story about race in the -- rape in the military. it's a black eye on the country that must be erased. 19,000 rapes a year occur in the military. those are figures determined by the department of defense itself. i encourage those who want to tell their story to email me at stopmilitaryrape@mail .house.gov. today i want to talk about seaman cory choka. she served from 2005 to seven. her allegation are as follows. she was consistently harassed by superiors. on one occasion, when she made a mistake, he called her a

stupid [beep]ing female who didn't belong in the military and then he spit in her face. she complained about her superior's abusive military and expressed fear of him to others in the chain of command. as is too often the case, reporting led to her being punished and not the perpetrator. her superior began to drive past her home many times during the day and called her repeatedly, leaving voice mails threatening her life he then began to break into her room at night and stand over her bed. she began sleeping with a knife under her pillow to defend herself. during work one day, her superior thrust his groin into her buttocks as she bent over to pick up some trash he then called her a bleeping whore and laughed. she and another shipmate who witnessed the incident reported it to the command. she requested a transfer. but it was denied.

at the end of november, 2005, the superior broke into her room, he directed her to touch his genitals. when she refused loudly, he grabbed her hand and pushed it into his groin. when she yelled again and pushed her superior away, he struck her, so -- he struck her so hard in the face she was thrown across the room and against the wall. she and two other shipmates who witnessed the harassment went to command and reported the assault. command did nothing in response. in december, 2005, she was ordered to go to retrieve some keys from her superior who was in his state room. when he realized she was alone, he pulled her into the room, grabbed her by the hair and raped her. command obtained an admission of sex from the superior but told her if she pressed forward with reporting the rape, she would be court-martialed for

lying. they refused her pleas to take a lie detector test so she could prove her case. the superior only pled guilty to hitting her he got a slap on the wrist. she, on the other hand, was forced to sign a paper saying she had inappropriate relationships with her superior and was discharged. as part of the discharge process, command made her stay in an all-male barracks for 60 days. she now suffers from ptsd and an abnormal e.e.g. due to nerve damage in her face. she later told the press, it's like they didn't care. it wasn't important. i wasn't important. seaman choka, you are important and it is important and it's high time that the congress of the united states take action to rid the military of rape. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. always an honor and privilege to speak in this body. and there's just been so much information about the american jobs act that the president has touted that he demappeded that we pass here in this room and at the time he had no american jobs act, next day, friday, he spent millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars running around the country demanding that people pass his bill and saturday, same thing, all weekend, run around telling people, pass his american jobs act, when there was no such bill. monday afternoon, very late, there became a bill. it's hard to believe that this

is what came out of the white house because it does not represent what the president said he wanted to do, said he believed in. and you know, i'm sure he doesn't have time to go through and actually read and see that the things he's saying in his speech are completely opposite of what he's doing in his so-called american jobs act but that's why after six days of being beat up verbally by the president for not passing his american jobs act and finding that there was no such american jobs act on file here in the house, i felt like i needed to help the president by creating an american jobs act that really will create jobs so i filed a two-paming american jobs act that would do more than anything the president's talked about or put in writing to create jobs in america. but just since the president is obviously not aware of what's actually in his bill on

what he's saying, just in the limited time we have here, i wanted to touch on some of these things. for example, the president said over and over and over that he wants to go after the greedy big oil companies, like british petroleum, exxon, shell, those big companies and that his american jobs act, his bill, actually will do that. it'll go after their profits. he's probably -- he probably has no clue that the fact is that three pages of deductions that are eliminated for oil companies, they're basically for oil companies that produce less than 1,000 barrels of oil a day. they don't apply to the people the president says he's going after for these unseemly profits they're making. and i'm sure he's also not

aware but the fact is over 94% of all oil and gas wells drilled on the continental u.s. are done by independent oil producers who these three pages will devastate and put most out of business and so the president by these three pages that i'm sure he doesn't really understand what they do, but the fact is they put the independent oil producers out of business, they will afingt the major oil companies because once over 94% of all oil and gas wells in america, in the continental u.s., are stopped, then the major oil companies that he's demonized will actually make more money than they've ever made in their history and it will be the middle, hardworking americans, that will pay the biggest price. they're the least able to afford dramatically higher gasoline prices but that's what will happen. now we're also told that we're going to go after the millionaires and billionaires

that have all this money and not paying their fair share. now, to me, if we're going to make sure everybody pays the fair share, and you've got somebody like warren buffett who pays 15% capital gains tax, why not make everybody's tax 15%. everybody in america ought to have some financial interest in seeing this government as accountable. that's what should happen. but instead, at page 134 and 135 of his bill, and again, it has to be filed in the house because it's a revenue raising bill, under the constitution, it's not on file. there hasn't been one democrat willing to file this disaster of the bill that the president is out there beating us up over. actually, he's just saying pass the american jobs act which is my two-pame bill that will

create squobs. but people need to know that the definition in here apparently of a millionaire or billionaire is anybody whose married and makes over $125,000 a year. for some of us, $125,000 a year is not a millionaire, billionaire, gazillionaire. this is somebody who is paying taxes, they're paying their fair share, around -- they're paying over 30% of their income in taxes. why should we just say, all right, ultra rich like warren buffett, quit fighting not to pay the billions of dwhrures already owe in taxes, just write the check. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex-peered. mr. gohmert: thank you. i think of people will read the president's bill they'll find out we need to pass the american jobs act that's on file with the house. that's my bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. herger,

for five minutes. mr. herger: madam speaker, the 3% withholding provision which will come into effect if congress does not act essentially forces businesses that have contracts with the government to forgo 3% of their payments as a down payment under tax bill -- on their tax bill this represents yet another burden on our nation's small businesses and job creators. the life blood of our economy. as a small businessman i know firsthand about the negative impact of burdensome taxes and cumbersome regulations. many small businesses that contract with the government operate on very slim profit margins so a 3% tax would create serious cash flow problems for them at a time when so many are struggling. aside from that, this provision

will actually cost the government money. federal, state, and local governments are already facing unprecedented deficits and yet agencies will have to create new collection systems and may face higher costs for goods and services if this is not repealed. the department of defense has said that for the d.o.d. alone, the provision would cost $17 billion to implement. madam speaker, that is $7 billion more than the total revenue that is expected to -- the tax is expected to raise. in another example of washington math, the provision will force the government to spend more money and end up eliminating jobs and hurting small businesses. congress can certainly do better. we must do better, 20 million americans are out of or and our small businesses must have the

certainty they need to create more jobs. we cannot punish law-abiding businesses because they view contractors -- because they feel contractors do not pay their taxes. instead the government should stop awarding government contracts to businesses that do not pay. at that point, the o.m.b. and treasury department have announced several nichetives to prevent contracts from going to companies that are delinquent on their taxes. madam speaker, we're looking for something we can do right now to help job creation in america. this is it. repealing the 3% withholding provision would provide a significant benefit to small businesses just by getting washington out of their way. if we don't repeal it, we will

put small businesses, jobs across america, and our efforts at economic recovery at greater risk. it's time to get this harmful, job-killing provision off the books forever. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

. guest: we knew early in the day it was going to be close that they were pulling their support and we're actually going to -- they were going to urge their members to vote against the bill. the tom democrat from washington, norm dicks, said he would support the bill last week. and then he -- it was announced by steny hoyer, the number two sdrat, that dicks was going to oppose it this morning. so that was the thing that

republicans would have trouble. but it wasn't clear until the actual vote occurred that they simply did not have the votes to pass the bill. it seemed the republicans at some point later, closer to that point had realized that they didn't have the votes, that they obviously did not pull the bill from the floor or would tell anybody. and even this morning or yesterday morning, eric cantor prodicted the bill would pass the -- predicted the bill would pass the house. host: the lowest spending number they could get. what was the speaker's reaction? guest: he actually -- he did not have much to say. the republican leader retreated very quickly to boehner's office to figure out what their next move would be. as of this morning they have yet to announce what that would

be. their options are they could change the spending cut that they used to offset some of the money for disaster aid, about $1 billion. they cut from an energy loan program that was -- democrats objected strongly to that. so they could try to find a new offset that democrats would support or they could simply get rid of the offsetting spending and that would pretty much guarantee them democratic support, but they could also lose republicans. so they are in a bit of a pickle. it seemed unlikely -- it's possible they could make the bill more conservative. they could cut more spending to gain republican support but that could escalate the collision course that they were on with the senate who was -- senator harry reid didn't like this bill to begin with. so they may have to compromise more with democrats.

host: russell berman, the house back next week. in their home districts for recess. the deadline here is the end of the month. guest: right. and it seems like it's more like the end of the week if they don't want the recess have to be canceled. so we expect to hear something this morning about what their -- what the path is. speaker john boehner has a press conference scheduled at 11:15 that should provide some answers. it really i think is up to the house to decide how they want to change the bill, they can get a bipartisan bill out of the house then it will put a lot of pressure on the senate to pass that. but the house leaders have already advised their members that a weekend session in the house is now possible. host: tell us about the republicans who voted against it. you touched on the fact that some of them didn't think this would go far enough, but what do they see their next move

being? guest: well, the dispute there really came down to the top spending levels. and the debt limit deal that passed in august, the leaders of both parties tried to head off just this fight by agreeing to a spending level for fiscal year 2012 which starts on october 1 and that would be $1.043 trillion. republican leaders agreed to stick to that level when they drafted this bill. now, many conservatives wanted them to not go below that number and stick to the level of spending, the cap that was in the house g.o.p. budget that passed earlier this year and that was a lower cap. and so the 48 republicans who voted against this bill, many of them -- we haven't talked to all of them, but many of them wanted them to stick to that lower cap instead of the number that was agreed to in the debt

deal. host: russell berman, staff writer with "the hill," thanks so much. >> well, as russell berman mentioned in that conversation from this morning, the speaker is having a news conference. it should get under way right now, as a matter of fact, live here on c-span. >> america's families and small businesses are hurting and they're continuing to ask the question -- where are the jobs? they're looking for the white house and congress to work together to get our economy back on track. and that's exactly what we're doing. last week the leadership sent a memo to our members which identified areas that offer potential for common ground in the president's plan. that would include extending businesses to expense 100% of the cost of certain profits that they put in service. new employer tax credits,

hiring the disabled and unemployed veterans. reforms to the unemployment insurance system and repairing and improving our infrastructure. republicans also laid out a blueprint for economic growth and job creation that focuses on one thing, removing government barriers to private sector job growth. we asked the president to give our plan consideration as well. the deficit proposals that the president put forward i think were a step backward. his plan, in my opinion, will destroy jobs by raising taxes on small businesses and their capital. the key ingredient i think to job creation in our country. these tax hikes have been rejected by members of both political parties. listen, job creators are essentially on strike. i think we need to work together to get the government out of the way so the economy can grow and we can get people back to work.

you know, in light of his visit -- to a concrete plant, while the president is there, steve chabot and geoff davis, two members that represent both sides -- both sides of the bridge that the president's going to visit, have asked the president to support legislation that's moving through the house that would stop the federal government from imposing regulations on cement manufacturers. these regulations threaten thousands of american jobs and we hope the president will address this during his visit. everyone in cincinnati and northern kentucky, i know how important the bridge is to our region. i have long supported replacing the bridge, and i'm pleased the president is bringing attention to this much-needed project. but, you know, now is not the time for the president to go

into campaign mode. earlier this week, the white house said that governing -- the governing phase is behind them. i think for the sake of american families and small businesses who are struggling, i'd certainly hope this isn't so. they have a right to expect us to solve the problems that we have rather than run away from them. now, let me just say this, governing isn't behind what's happening here on capitol hill. our economy's in jeopardy, the future for many families and small businesses is hanging in the balance. tomorrow's the anniversary of our pledge to america. our pledge to listen to the american people and confront the challenges that will be faced head on. we can't afford to wait. i think too much is at stake. we said if the white house won't lead we will. that's a promise we made and it's a promise we're going to keep. >> last night's vote seemed

quite comprising. how are you going to modify the c.r. to get it through? how are you going to avoid another government shutdown? >> there is no threat of government shutdown. let's just get this out there. this continuing resolution was designed to be a bipartisan bill, and we had every reason to believe that our counterparts across the aisle were supportive. and once the began to -- we began to see it, they voted against the disaster relief for the millions of people affected by this. we're going to meet with our members later today and provide a way forward. i believe the house should work its will. i understood the risk yesterday, but why not put the bill on the floor and let the members speak and they did.

>> don't you feel to some degree you are between a rock and a hard place here? you alienate conservatives in your conference. if you change this in some way, you might pass the bill but, again, you made it rough on your conference. that's been the criticism from the start on all these bills. >> welcome to my world. >> what does your message send to the -- what do you want them to do? >> well, you know, they could vote -- not in essence what they're doing, voting to spend more money because that's exactly what will happen. >> mr. speaker -- >> you said you wanted the supercommittee to go big. you said that a couple weeks ago. i'm curious, do you think 1.2 or whatever put forward, is that an acceptable outcome for you? >> as outlined in the deficit reduction act, their job is to come up with $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. if they go bigger than that,

god bless them. >> you don't have control of your republican conference, what's your response to that? >> i have no fear of allowing the house to work its will. and i have long believed in it and i still continue to believe in it. does it make my life a little more difficult? yes, it does. but at the end of the day, every member has an obligation to represent their constituents . i'm going to respect that right of our members to do that, and it does present a little more work for us. we'll work our way through it. >> mr. speaker, you signed a litter urging the -- you signed a letter urging the felt [inaudible] have you lost confidence in bernanke. >> it was to raise concerns that we had that we wanted to share with the fed. they decided to go in a different direction. we continue to have concerns with the activities of the fed because it appears to us that

they are taking actions because they don't believe the political system can do what needs to be dob done. -- needs to be done. frankly, that's enabling the political process rather than forcing the political process to do what it should do and that's to deal with our deficit and our debt which is imperiling jobs and imperiling the future for our kids and grandkids. >> do you expect the house to be in session this weekend and next week? >> i hope not. >> do you worry how this body obviously has an 82% disapproval rating, there is chaos, do you worry about that at all? >> it is now 535 individuals and trying to get 535 people to come to an agreement on anything around here is difficult. but that's -- we knew that going in. we'll work our way through this. i've always been confident that we'll be able to come to an

agreement and we will. >> what's the direction of the 44 members of your party that didn't vote for you last night or the democrats wants change? >> we'll have a conversation about that thrater. you'll have the answer when we get there. >> do you think we'll pass reductions in the president's plan? is that a no -- >> one of my main concerns about the payroll tax deduction by members of both parties, because there's a real question what it means to the entitlement programs that those payroll taxes support and secondly, on the other side, the real economic impact of those payroll tax deductions and tax credits and whether it really does in fact help the economy.

thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> speaker boehner saying there is no threat of a government shutdown. this after the congress failed a short-term spending measure. republican leaders will meet today. they're working on another version. the house comes back at noon eastern today. they will consider a bill setting up a committee to review e.p.a. regulations and recommend which rules to eliminate. the bill also delays implementation of rules dealing with mercury and toxic air emission. a dozen amendments are pending to that bill. live coverage of the house when they gavel back in at noon eastern here on c-span. on the e.p.a., earlier this month president obama halted new clean air regulations, making their way through the environmental protection agency's rulemaking process. e.p.a. administer pleasea jackson this morning making her first appearance on capitol hill since the president took that action. she's before house energy and

commerce subcommittee how e.p.a.'s regulatory process will be affected by the administration's new efforts to call what the president calls, quote, regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty. this is from earlier today. >> ladies and gentlemen, this past january president obama issued executive order 1356-3, to improve regulations in the regulatory review process, noting that our regulatory system, "must protect public health, welfare, safety and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation." with job creation and the nation's economic recovery the focal point, the subcommittee has sought to get a clear understanding of agency regulatory action under this administration. today in our seventh hearing in this effort we will examine the e.p.a.'s regulatory planning, analysis and major actions

taken. while we agree with the principles outlined in the executive order, we are disappointed that e.p.a. does not seem to have followed those principles. time and time again over the last three years we have seen the e.p.a. issue oppressive new regulations that have dramatically raise the cost of doing business in the united states and indeed have driven numerous american companies out of business altogether. the e.p.a. is unquestionably an important public health regulatory agency which has contributed to the tremendous improvements in clean air, safe drinking water and environmental quality over the past 40 years. it is also an agency that wheels tremendous influence over the essential ingredients of economic recovery, the cost of manufacturing, construction and power production, the reliability of energy, the certainty of future rules and standards in the decisions that drive the nation's commerce.

since the beginning of this administration, e.p.a. has issued or proposed a number of large, complex and expensive rules. the pace of these rulemaking is such that's not always clear, e.p.a. has fully considered or fully informed the public about the potential negative consequences of its actions on the united states economy, job creation and our ability to compete with countries around the world. i consider the decisions in the first weeks of the administration to pursue an endangerment findings for greenhouse gases. this form, the regulatory predicate for setting fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and e.p.a. estimated cost of about $60 billion. the president announced a prospect of this new regulation at a rose garden ceremony. but there was no public discussion about the fact that the new regulation also would

have automatically triggered new permitting requirements required by the clean air act for all stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. these permitting requirements meant that 82,000 stationary sources annually would need to obtain preconstruction permits, another 6.1 million sources would need to obtain operating permits. e.p.a. estimated that absent a rulemaking to exempt the majority of these sources, the permitting costs alone could be $193 billion over just a three-year period. the cost of ceasing operations or not initiating new projects was never taken into account. to avoid this absurd and self-imposed economic calamity, e.p.a. issued, quote, tailoring rules to exempt most but not all sources but left open the possibility of sweeping nor

entities into the new permit -- more entities into a new permitting. this affects the entire new economy as the future of greenhouse gas permitting exists under a cloud of uncertainty. now in another case in january, 2010, e.p.a. chose to reconsider ground level ozone standards just set in 2008. although the proposed standards would potentially sweep vast areas of the nation into noncompliance and cost upwards of $90 billion per year, the agency sought to rush and issue final standards in just eight months. the agency missed that deadline but was still promising to issue final standards and tell -- until the president himself recognizing that such a rule would cause him severe electoral problems in the next election recently requested that the administer refrain

from issuing the ozone rule at this time. the president is onboard, however with issuing onerous new regulations in 2013 after the election. just yesterday, this committee reported legislation to provide adequate time for e.p.a. to develop standards for hazardous air pollutants for boilers and cement plants after it became apparent that e.p.a.'s complex and admittedly rushed rulemaking results and requirements simply unachievable in the real world. under the clean air act, the resource conservation recoveryability and various other statutes, e.p.a. appears to be rushing forward with rule makings that just doesn't make sense. for those who knows what it takes to implement them and those that ensure we have a vital economy. it does not appear that the president's stated priorities, thoughtful, transparticipant and sound rulemaking have taken whole at the e.p.a. i am eager to learn about

e.p.a.'s rulemaking plan and how the cumulative impact of its rules informed its planning. does e.p.a. consult adequately with other agencies? does e.p.a. operate openly with affected stakeholders, states and the public? these are important questions. i look forward to our question with the honorable lisa jackson. with that i recognize the distinguished ranking member, diana degette from colorado. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for conving this hearing. i think that oversight directed towards efficient and effective endeavor is an important en defer. we need to root out wasteful regulations. as a one-time member of the distinguished subcommittee, i believe the purpose of this committee is to investigate what can be done, not to forward a political agenda. and so i know we're going to have a heated discussion today, but i think we should keep it focused on exactly what

regulations we're talking about, what the purpose is and if in fact they're necessary. to that end, i'm delighted to welcome our witness today, e.p.a. administer lisa jackson. administrator jackson oversees implementation of some of the most important legislation ever passed by congress and its my view that she's one of the most gutsy and effective members of the administration. the main topic of the conversation today will be jobs. i know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will assert that environmental rules and regulations are stifling jobs and harming economic growth. but this is simply not the case. we need to keep in mind the purpose of the clean air act, to protect the health of americans. now, in 2010 alone, the clean air act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, millions of respiratory illnesses, three million plost school days and

13 million lost work days. by 2020 the clean air act total benefit to the economy will reach $2 trillion, outweighing costs more than 30-1. the clean air act and our environmental laws do something else. they create millions of jobs, and they could create millions of more jobs if it weren't for the inaction of this congress to pass climate change legislation. compliance with the clean air act generates investment in design, manufacture, installation and operation and equipment to reduce pollution. the environmental technology and services sector has grown steadily since the act's adoption, generating $300 billion in revenue and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in 2008 alone. clean air act rules recently announced by the e.p.a. will only add to this remarkable record. for example, investments spurred by the utility toxics

and cross-state air pollution rules will generate 1.5 million jobs by 2015. these will be high-paying skilled professional jobs that cannot be outsourced. mr. chairman, one of the biggest steps this committee could take would pass long overdue legislation and usher in an era of clean energy. now, you don't need to be a democrat to believe this. you just need to live in the science-based world. two years ago when this committee passed landmark climate legislation, we heard from business leaders that there were billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines just waiting for clear rules of the road to be drawn up for the nation's energy future. i just met with the colorado rural electric folks yesterday who told me the same thing and they continue to ask congress to act. just last week, for example, the american energy innovation

council, led by people like bill gates, venture capitalist, john dore, and general electric c.e.o. implored the federal government to invest in clean energy technologies. i want to read to you from these leaders' recent report, catalyzing ingenuity. "innovation is the core of america's economic strength and future prosperity. new ideas are the key to fostering sustained economic growth, creating jobs in new industries and continuing america's global leadership. of all the sectors in the economy where we have -- energy stands out. reliable energy is not only vital for the functioning of the larger economy, it's also vital to people's everyday lives. it also significantly impacts the country's national security, environmental well-being and economic competitiveness."

mr. chairman, here's what these business leaders conclude. "unfortunately the country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation program commensurate with the scale of the national priorities that are at stake." mr. chairman, we should listen to the titans of this economy. we should unleash energy innovation and create american jobs in the new energy economy. instead, unfortunately, this congress is sitting on the sidelines pretending that scientific and economic realities do not exist. in march every single republican member of this committee voted against the overwhelming scientific consensus to deny the very existence of global climate change. many republican members are using the sylender debacle to cut energy funding. this denial of reality is bad for the economy and bad for the environment. so i'm glad to have this discussion about the rules and regulatory reform efforts. and i hope that we can come together in a science-based

discussion to talk about new energy and president new economy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentlelady and recognize the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. throughout the year, this committee has focused its oversight and legislation in identifying and mitigating of burdensome regulations. and through its regulatory reform series, this subcommittee's examination of the president's regulatory principles has helped to sharpen our focus on important gaps between the administration's rhetoric and reality. the rhetoric, which i agree with, is that we should implement reasonable and achievable ways to protect the american people. we should recognize that well-being should ensure economic growth and healthy job creation. the president's talked about the importance of cost benefit analysis to ensure that regulations do more good than harm. the reality, unfortunately, is

the regulatory onslaught from e.p.a. that is destroying jobs and stifling economic growth with financial burdens and uncertainty. in some cases the cost benefit analysis is completely absent. other cases the economic consequences of rules is flat out ignored. over the years i have seen e.p.a. conduct rule makings on important clean air act provisions, but i've never seen so many i major rules from e.p.a. at a pace and complexity as has occurred during this administration. there have been complex rules with profound impacts on energy production and manufacturing, essential contributors to economic growth in this country. in some cases, such as the boiler and cement rules, we have some things technically unachievable because the e.p.a. seems to be doing too much too fast. it makes authorizations to the rule makings that raises questions about regulatory judgment and decisionmaking in the first place. we want the e.p.a. and the

administration to comply with its own principles as outlined in the president's executive order on regulation. today we're going to hear directly from administrator jackson to hear what steps she plans to take to ensure that these actions will match the administration's regulatory rhetoric, and i yield to my friend, the chairman emeritus of the committee, mr. barton. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, again, ma'am administrator. it's good to have you with us. there are many things that are ailing our country right now, madam administrator, and it seems that your agency appears to be at ground zero of a fair number of them. since president obama took office and you became the administrator of the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a. has rushed to issue rules on greenhouse gases which the congress rejected in the last congress, ozone which our president just rejected several weeks ago,

coal ash, boiler ash and our boiler mack and cement industries which those industries are strenuously objecting to. in my own state of texas, last year the e.p.a. revoked the flexible air quality permit rules that had been in place for almost 20 years, starting with president clinton, and just recently the e.p.a. announced a cross-state air pollution rule where texas which wasn't even included in the rule six months ago is expected to assume somewhere between 25% and 40% of the reductions. this is somewhere puzzling since our monitors indicate that we're in compliance and it's an e.p.a. model that seems to indicate that in certain states there could be a problem. the cost of all these rules is in the billion dollars annually, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. just last week in my state, in

my congressional district, a company that is subject to the cross-state air pollution announced a closure of two mines and reduction of closure of two power plants that in my district alone is probably going to cost in the magty tude of 1,000 jobs. we have a president who says we need to create jobs, not destroy jobs. we have a president who says we need regulatory environment that is -- that has a cost benefit analysis, and yet your agency, the e.p.a., seems to ignore these admonitions. it's as if there is -- there is some evil jeannie at the e.p.a. that is -- geanie at the e.p.a. that is going to put every law in the books as fast as possible. i hope, madam administrator, that we can get into some of these specific rules. we have a number of very

specific questions that we want to ask. and as always, we look forward to having you answer them and tell us where -- where your agency is. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. there is 10 decks seconds. dr. burgess, do you want to say something? >> yes. i want to put my entire statement in the record. although you work for the executive branch, congress is a co-equal branch of government. when we ask for stuff, you need to produce it. we have been stone walled in this committee over and over again. and those days have to stop because the american people are asking serious questions. they want answers. and it's up to they committee to get the answers for them. >> i thank the gentleman. and now we recognize -- >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask the gentleman from texas to provide for us examples of where you think e.p.a. has

stone walled, not now by for the record because this statement has been made and i'd like to see verification. >> title 42 regulations. >> i'd like to see -- i'd like to see documentary -- >> the gentleman from california is recognized for his opening statement for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is our seventh hearing on regulatory reform, and we'll be told by our colleagues across the aisle, e.p.a. needs to do a better job. well, we'll hear them say they need to do better at analyzing regulations before finalizing. but this hearing isn't really about regulatory reform. it's just a continuation of a long series of attacks on our environment and public health. this is the most anti-environmental house of representatives in history. so far this congress, the house of representatives, has voted again and again to block action

to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas and weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. mr. chairman, my staff prepared a database last month on every anti-environmental vote taken in this congress. it was 125. 125 votes to weaken the clean air act and the clean water act, to make our drinking water less safe, to weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. this is an appalling and dangerous environmental record. and it should come to no surprise that this record of anti-environmental votes shows little concern for crafting well analyzed policy that takes the views of all stakeholders into account. today, the house will begin consideration of the train act, a bill whose passage will block

actions to clean up smog, sewage and toxic air pollution from the nation's power plants. when this bill is considered, we'll vote on amendments offered by chairman whitfield and representative latta. the whitfield amendment will require power plants to install modern pollution controls. the latta amendment will reverse 40 years of clean air policy, allowing our national goals for clean air to be determined by corporate profits, not public health. they will not agree that we will have a hearing on the latta amendment before reversing 40 years of success in the clean water act. they will not clarify years and years of litigation and delay. we should hear from states, industry, public health groups, clean air advocates and other stakeholders before voting on these radical clean air

amendments. these amendments are being considered through an egregiously flawed process, a stark change from the way this committee has traditionally handled important clean air legislation. we should at least understand what they do before voting on them. and we're sitting here criticizing e.p.a. for the work they put into their regulations before they issue them, and yet we're going to pass laws, at least pass it through the house, without a single moment of hearing just because some representatives want to and maybe the republican party wants to respond to big business and forget about the safety and the well-being and the health of the american people. well, today's hearing will provide an opportunity to hear from the administrator of the e.p.a., and i'm pleased to welcome lisa jackson. this is not the first time. i don't know how many times she's had to appear before this committee. i don't think she has time to do all the dreadful things that the republicans are accusing

her doing because she's spending most of her time here to listen to complaints from the republicans about regulations, some of which they haven't even proposed, and the republicans want to appeal it. i'll ask the administrator about the whitfield and the latta amendments and how dangerous they are to the american people. that will serve as some opportunity to examine these issues. and it will give us an opportunity to hear from the e.p.a. administrator of the impacts of the entire republican anti-environment agenda. mr. chairman, i want to yield some time. i have a minute left if any of my democratic colleagues, ms. schakowsky, i yield the balance of my time. >> well, here we are again, and i want to reiterate just a bit what representative waxman has said. clearly we are witnessing the

most anti-environmental house of representatives in american history. my colleague from texas, the former chairman of this committee, was citing some of the things that have happened in texas and the reason to undo some of the regulations that you proposed. but i just wanted to point out that understand governor rick perry's tenure, texas has become far and away the largest -- the nation's largest co-2 emitter. if texas were its own country, as mr. perry has advocated in the past, it will be the eighth biggest polluter in the world. so it is high time that the environmental protection agency continue in what has been a bipartisan tradition of protecting our environment, of protecting the health of americans and, by the way, not

destroying jobs in any way but creating an opportunity for new 21st century clean jobs, and i yield back. >> and just a reminder that hearing with the e.p.a. administrator continues live now. you can follow it at c-span.org and later in our video library. the house returns in about five minutes at noon eastern to consider a bill setting up a committee to review e.p.a. regulations and recommend which rules to eliminate. the bill also delays implementation of rules dealing with mercury and tocksir air emissions. house leaders, meanwhile, are working on short-term federal spending. this after the continuing resolution failed yesterday by a vote of 195-230. david hawkings in "congressional quarterly" writing this leader, the republicans are talking about decoupling the disaster aid from the c.r. they're also talking about moving a stopgap bill that lasts for more time than the seven weeks they hoped for. maybe for only a week. that's from david hawkings.

we spoke to a reporter this morning on "washington journal" on why the vote failed last night. >> we go to the phone lines, russell berman, staff writer for "the hill." good morning. guest: good morning. host: so how much of a surprise was this and at what point did you realize that republicans didn't have the vote? guest: well, it wasn't a surprise until right up until the vote occurred. we knew during the day it was going to be close after democrats announced in the morning that they were pulling their support and were actually going to urge their members to vote against the bill. the top democrat on the appropriations committee, norm dicks of washington state, had said he would support the bill last week. although remarkably. it was mentioned by steny hoyer, the number two democrats, that dicks was going

to oppose it in the morning. most democrats opposed the bill. republicans would have trouble. but it wasn't clear until the actual vote occurred that they didn't -- they simply did not the votes to pass the bill. it seemed that the republicans at some point later, closer to that point had realized that they didn't have the votes but they obviously did not pull the bill from the floor or would tell anybody. and even this morning or yesterday morning, aircraft cantor predicted the bill would pass the house. host: you write in your story, the defeat was a stinging loss for speaker john boehner who pitched the measure to his conference as the lowest spending number they could get. what was the speaker's reaction? guest: he did not have much to say. the republican leader retreated very quickly to boehner's office to figure out what their next move would be. as of this morning they have yet to announce what that will

be. their options are they could change the spending cut that they used to offset some of the money for disaster aid, about $1 billion. they cut from an energy loan program that was -- democrats objected strongly to that, so they could try to find a new offset that democrats could support. or they could just simply get rid of the offsetting spending cut and that would pretty much guarantee democratic smor. -- support. but they could also lose republicans. so they are in a bit of a pickle. it seems unlikely, it's possible they could make the bill more conservatives, that they could cut more spending to gain republican support, but that would only escalate the collision course that they were on with the senate who was -- senator harry reid didn't like this bill to begin with. so they may have to compromise

more with democrats. host: russell berman, how is the timing shaping up? congress is slated to be out next week, back in their home districts for a recess. the deadline here is the end of the month. guest: right. and it seems like it's more like the end of the week if they don't want this recess to have to be canceled. so we expect to hear something this morning about what their -- what the path is. speaker john boehner has a press conference scheduled for 11:15. it should provide some answers. and it really i think is up to the house to decide how they want to change it. if they can get a bipartisan bill out of the house, then it will put a lot of pressure on the senate to pass that. but the house leaders have already advised their members that a weekend session in the house is now possible. host: and tell us about the republicans that voted against it. you touched on the fact that some of them didn't think this

would go far enough. but what do they see their next move being? guest: well, the dispute there really came down to the top spending plelves. and the debt limit deal that passed in august, the leaders of both parties tried to head off just this fight by agreeing to a spending level for fiscal year 2012 which starts on october 1, and that would be $1.043 trillion. republican leaders agreed to stick to that level when they drafted this bill. now, many conservatives wanted them to not go below that number and stick to the level of spending, the cap that was in the house g.o.p. budget that passed earlier this year. and that was a lower cap. and so the 48 republicans who voted against this bill, many of them -- we haven't talked to all of them, but many of them wanted them to stick to that lower cap instead of the number

that was agreed to in the debt deal. host: russell berman, staff writer for "the hill," thank you very much. >> the house coming up. possible work, too, on continued federal spending. the republican caucus will meet early this afternoon to talk about the way forward. u.s. house coming in next with live coverage here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. our prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. once again we come to ask you for wisdom, patience, peace, and understanding for the members of this people's house. at a time when once again

strong sentiments stand in opposition, we ask discernment for the members that they may judge anew their adherence to principles and convictions. protect them from a deafness toward one another lest they slide uncharitably toward an inability to work together to solve the important issues of our day. give them the generosity of heart and the colonel of true leadership to work toward a common solution which might call for compromise, even sacrifice, on both sides. in the end, may we all as americans be proud of the processes of elective democratic government. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and

announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from most. mr. long: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: pursuant to section 103c of public law 108-83, the speaker appoints janis c. robinson as director of the office of interparliamentary affairs of the united states house of representatives. the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. long: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. long: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm new to this house, new to politics, actually. i'm a small business owner, ran my own business for 30 years. when you have your own business you get a lot of free, unsolicited advice. most of that advice is telling you how to run your business. back home, a fellow would tell you, after a 30-minute diseration on how to run your business, he'd stop and revise and extend -- revise and extend his remarks and say, well, i guess i can run everybody's business but my own. usually they've been bankrupt a couple of times and been fired but they want to tell you how to run the business. when i hear about the government trying to tell people how to run their business, i'm reminded by that -- of that man. we don't do much right up here and trying to run a business is not something we should be doing. we should be reducing taxes,

redeucing spending, redeucing regulation and we need those three free trade agreements from the white house over here. if you don't believe me, ask the crurepeen union. car exports up 200% after they signed their free trade agreement with creequa, their aircraft and machine is up over 2,300%. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. last week we passed a bill to extend funding for critical highway and infrastructure projects for six months. i don't think six months is long enough. we're told by businesses that they need certainty before they can invest and the same is true for those businesses that would help us build an infrastructure that reflects the challenges of the 21st century. to give that certainty, we need

to pass a long-term highway and transit funding bill now so we can create lasting jobs. in my home city of los angeles, we're already pursuing innovative measures like the 3010 america fast forward initiative to get the infrastructure we need to stay competitive tomorrow, built today. ms. han: that promises to create 160 -- ms. hahn: just think what that could do for the country as a whole. a long-term bill will put us one step closer to realizing that goal. keeping our nation competitive in the future requires vision and boldness in the present and i urge my colleagues to pass a long-term surface transportation bill equal to what is before us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. diaz-balart: i rise to honor one of our former colleagues, a woman who is an institution in south florida and the nation that is congresswoman carrie meek. she was the first african-american elected to the florida senate. first african-american woman elected to the florida senate in 1982. then along with two other colleagues became the first african-american to be elected from florida to the u.s. congress since reconstruction. but here's what i know about remember about her. she is the consummate stateswoman. she is a person who loves her country, loves this institution and it doesn't matter what party you're from, whenever you have a need, whenever you have an issue, when you want counsel, she's the person that to this day we continue to go to. so again, i'm here to honor a great woman a great stateswoman, a person who in the constituent of florida is revered by republicans and democrats alike. her son followed her into

congress, kendrick meek, he did a wonderful job and also comes from that great tree that is carrie meek. i'm here to honor carrie meek, carrie, we love you, we miss you, we honor you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the founding of the peace corps. today, over 1,000 returned peace corps volunteers are here in our capitol to bring us the attention that the peace corps deserves. congress passed legislation authorizing the peace corps and giving it a mandate to, quote, promote peace and friendship. since then, 200,000 americans including myself and congressmens tom petri, mike honda, and john garamendi have served our great country in the name of peace and friendship.

i'm so proud that 18 volunteers are currently serving from my district in california, including jonathan coffman from monterey who is produce 50g0 educational books in el salvador. joshua tessleman teaching english in madagascar and has an english language radio station. just now, there are 658,000 americans serving in 0 countries. peace corps service doesn't end when you leave the country this weekend more than 1,300 peace corps volunteers are here in washington, d.c. they are the advocates for peace and prosperity and good will that the peace corps embodies. join me in making the 50th anniversary of the peace corps truly an opportunity to serve our country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, solving this nation's crushing unemployment problem has been my focus since the people of eastern and southeastern ohio sent me to washington to start change. today i rise to outline five specifics actions we must make to create economic certainty, give job creators the confidence to hire again. they are, require the federal government to balance its budget annually. mr. johnson: scrap the tax code and implement a flatter, fairer tax code. eliminate all pending regulations not directly tied to public health or national security. establish a clear national policy and repeal the president's health care law. i've discussed all this with countless residents of eastern and southeastern ohio and they all like what they hear. but the popularity of this agenda has little to do with me.

these ideas are rooted in the american dream and they can boost america's economy and lead to real job creation. if this administration wants to help us, we can start creating the jobs ohio and america needs. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i have asked some of my colleagues to join me today to pay tribute to a wonderful, wonderful stateswoman who represented florida's 17th congressional district for more than a decade. congresswoman carrie pittman meeks. it is my present district and as part of the congressional black caucus legislative conference her colleagues are honoring her today for her distinguished service to

greater miami to florida and to this nation. mrs. wilson: in congress, she focused on issues near and dear to her heart and her constituents, including economic development, education, affordable housing and issues affecting haiti and haitian americans. the miami-dade county community has shown its appreciation to her by naming an elementary school, a health clinic a boulevard, a branch of a local college and a community center in her honor. congresswoman meeks once said -- meek once said, sconk the -- service is what you pay for the space you occupy. thank you, carrie pittman meek for standing up for all of us and we are all standing on your shoulders. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to the memory of michael cole, a distinguished new jersey resident who died over the weekend and whose funeral will be held tomorrow. michael was among new jersey's most distinguished lawyers and publicer is vapts. he served as governor thomas kain's chief counsel in the 1980's and was very active heading the board of the corporation. he was a mentor to more than a generation of new jersey lawyers, including me when i worked under his leadership in governor kain's administration. he leaves his wife, janie a member of our state's highest tribunal, the new jersey supreme court, as well as a daughter, elise and son-in-law and granddaughter. the state of new jersey has been enriched by the life of michael cole. my wife high tee and i mourn his loss but join countless new jerseyans in celebrating his

wonderful life. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: i come to honor a truly great congresswoman and friend, carrie meek. her commitment to fighting for her most vulnerable communities is unmatched and there's no bigger supporter of medicare, medicaid and social security than congresswoman meek, a member of the appropriations committee, and she actually counseled me to seek a slot on that committee. so today, we say thank you for fighting the good fight and we applaud all of your service and your work, carrie. now in this new chapter of your life, our young people continue to benefit from your wisdom, through your foundation which deserves all of our support.

carrie was a friend of my mentor, our beloved shirley chisholm and i remember sharing our memories of her and i remember so much wise counsel that carrie bauf to me. i remember her sound guidance and also her principled stand. today i join in celebrating the many ways in which her work and her spirit has contributed to the success and well being of countless, countless people throughout south florida, our country, and our world. i miz you, carrie, i miss you especially during this congressional black caucus a.l.c. weekend, i miss your congressional classrooms, we love you, thank you so much for your leadership, believe you me, all of us are better people as a result of your being here for so long and your continuing to fight the good fight for our seniors and for our children. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise to join with my colleagues in

their friendly comments about our former colleague from florida, carrie meek. mr. young: i first met carrie when i was representing her brother who was a retired military veteran and a highly decorated veteran and that relationship ended when we laid him to rest at arlington national cemetery. but we really got to know each other well when i had the privilege of chairing the appropriations committee and carrie was a really great member of that appropriations committee. and i remember some of the very tense moments which happened on occasion. she would always find some way to bring a little bit of light and a little bit of pleasure to relieve the tension that was there. . i used to say to carrie, we talked often, i'd say, carrie, why is it i could never get you to vote right? and she said, you know, i've been wondering the same thing

about, why i could never get you to vote right. well, we had this great relationship. i miss her serving here because she brought a lot to the house, she brought a lot to the committee and, carrie, like your other colleagues, we really love you and we really appreciate and respect your service to our great nation. and, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the end this week of don't-ask, don't-tell shows we have nothing to fear and can only gain by extending liberty and equality to all of our citizens. brave men and women will not be denied the opportunity to serve their country. and soldiers will be judged on their ability to do their jobs, not their sexual orientation. this is a great step forward, but some seem eager to step back.

mr. price: in north carolina there is a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. this seems to be more about turning out the republican political base than about marriage. and many of our businesses say it would hinder their attempts to treat employees fairly. we must defeat it. at the national level we also have the defense of marriage act that should be repealed. this would ensure that marriages entered into one state will be recognized by other states. this year i have again co-sponsored repeal and don't intend to rest until dolea is repealed from the u.s. code. madam speaker, history will judge these records harshly. members of this body need to catch up. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. lamborn: we need a permanent fiscal solution to keep america the permanent land of the free for our children and grandchildren. there is only one way to bind congress to such a commitment, and that is a constitutional amendment requiring us to balance the budget. ordinary spending cuts and pledges to slash the deficit are no longer suspicious. mr. kaufman: americans were left in an economic hangover. new taxes, as some would propose, would reward the spenders with more money to waste. we need to stop spending money we don't have and begin living within our means. the future of our nation depends on it. a washington promise is only temporary. a constitutional amendment is permanent. for the sake of tomorrow's generation, let's get it done today. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: then the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, the house passed legislation to re-authorize the children's hospital graduate medical education pral. while celebrations should be in order, i'm disappointed the bill was considered under sessspention, preventing amendments to improve the program. the bill passed by this chamber fails to correct a glaring mental health parity which excludes children psychiatric hospitals. they are ineligible for entry into the program. in order to fix this oversight and address the acute need for additional health care providers trained in child psychiatry, i broe deuced legislation, h.r. 2558, the children's hospital education equity act, which would include certain children's psychiatric hospitals to determined eligibility. i look forwarded to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to correct this inequity and to advance our nation another step closer to achieving full mental health

parity. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the congressional record an on-ed by dr. gregory fifth in riverside, rhode island, a major teacher at a medical school. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise to honor a dedicated public servant and a dear friend, congresswoman carrie meek. carrie's legacy is extensive and incredible. the granddaughter of a slave, carrie became the first african-american woman to serve in the florida senate. my husband, dexter late then, and i had the honor to serving with carrie in the florida house and then in the florida senate and then carrie became the first african-american from florida since reconstruction elected to congress. what an honor. while in congress, carrie

worked vigorously and resolutely for her constituents in all of south florida, playing an instrumental role in rebuilding our community after the devastation of hurricane andrew. her accomplishments and service to our south florida community are too many to be enumerated. however, she hasn't rested on her lurels since leaving this chamber. she continues her commitment to service through the carrie meek foundation. i ask my colleagues to join us today in paying tribute to our dear friend, congresswoman carrie meek. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, we talk in this chamber about jobs. the good news is legislation that will create jobs has already been introduced. now we have to pass it. the american jobs act includes $80 billion to repair our aging infrastructure. mr. higgins: it would create 3,100 jobs in western new york

alone, rebuilding our roads and brimmings which will encourage private development and even further job creation. economists have concluded this bill will create two million jobs and keep the u.s. from sliding back into recession. also, madam speaker, according to the alliance for american manufacturing, 2.8 million jobs have been los over the last eak aid as a result with our -- last decade as a result with our trade deficit with china. american workers can compete with anyone so long as there is a level playing field, but china is fixing the game through currency manipulation. the currency reform for fair trade act would put a stop to that. the stop is long past dufort this congress to pass -- due for this congress to pass the currency reform trade act immediately, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i reaffirm my deep and unwavering commitment to the state of israel. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: this is a country that's celebrated our try universities and mourned our tragedies. a country that has shared our principles of peace, freedom and democracy. and most of all, a country that has without fail defended america in her darkest hour. as the u.n. considers recognizing an independent palestinian state, it is more important now than ever that we stand up, speak out and oppose this blatant attempt to circumvent direct talks with israel. i joined with many other colleagues in a letter to president obama urging the u.n. to veto any resolution that grants the palestinian statehood without direct negotiation with israel. peace cannot be created or sustained through a single unilateral decision from the u.n. i will continue to urge the u.n. to veto, and i will stand

with tremendous pride and admiration beside our friends in israel. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: then the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chu: some in congress wants to use the job crisis as an excuse to role back clean air protections that have prevented thousands of premature act. we are debating the train acts. in the republicans so-called jobs bills, conducting studies that will add paper to landfills insteading of creating jobs by upgrading toxic power plants so they no longer bear a threat to public health. the studies have been done. americans are still breathing mercury, arsenic and chromium. we have a chance to clean it up. it is called the clean air act and was passed in 1963. no matter what people said, increased pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. instead, we should be saving

lives, saving our environment and investing in the clean tech jobs of the future. the train act is a train wreck for americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. and to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. if you come to this congress with more interest than protecting air and water, then myself as i did as a prosecutor who actually used the clean air act and the clean water act for the good of the country, we must find balance. madam speaker, i'm here today because i woke up this morning with the thought of steelworkers on my mind. some of the 1,500 steelworkers whose jobs are now at risk since the sun oil refinery announced last week that it is getting out of the refining business. in essence, the inability to

compete because of the overregulation that we have and these jobs are going to be shipped overseas. good union-paying american jobs that could be here because of the policies that are coming out of washington are being destroyed and sent overseas, it is counterintuitive, it is counterproductive. mr. meehan: we must use common sense. we can't let the rhetoric stand in the way of the reality. we must fight for the future of those jobs while we fight for clean air. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: madam speaker, the president has offered a clear path forward to put the country back to work, help small business succeed and hire, rebuild america. the america's job act will provide an immediate boost to our economy through job

creation and tax relief for american workers and businesses. specifically, this plan will prevent teachers' layoff and keep firefighters and police officers on the job. it will support the modernization of at least 30,000 public schools across the country to ensure that every student has access to a 21st century education. this plan will create even more jobs by investing in america's crumbling infrastructure by rebuilding our roads, rebuilding our railways and rebuilding our airports. finally, the americans jobs act will cut payroll taxes in half for at least 160 million workers next year, allow more americans to refinance their homes at today's near 4% interest rate and provide opportunities to employ long-term unemployed workers. we are asking this congress to swiftly create jobs and rebuild our economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. when the health care bill known as obamacare was being debated in this congress, republicans said this bill would bankrupt this country, ration care for seniors and cost american jobs. well, that's exactly what will be happening if a new provision of the law goes into effect next week. unelected washington bureaucrats had ignored calls from congress asking for a delay in medicare cuts, to skilled nursing facilities and rehab centers. my colleagues know that i have a reputation for being one of the more fiscally conservative members of congress. i understand the need for cuts. but as one medical professional recently said, if i'm told i need an amputation, i'd like to know which limb is being cut off. the administration is proposing a reckless cut of nearly 13% to skilled nursing facilities and rehappen centers. mr. duncan: 80% of the overhead of fees facilities will be the

first to lose their jobs, receiving a lower quality of care at rehab centers means there's a gretter chance that patients will spend more time at a costly hospital, resulting in higher overall costs. mr. speaker, our seniors deserve better, and i strongly urge the administration to reconsider their decision. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker, and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: madam speaker, i rise today to express my strong support for the artificial pancreas, which will transform the way we treat diabetes in our country. millions of americans have diabetes. dithes accounts for $174 billion in health care costs in the u.s. each year. 32% of our medicare expenditures. studies show that tight control of blood glue close levels significantly delays die bet eck complications. most patients can't achieve

tight glue close control. e-- glucose control. it can have kidney failure, amputation, heart attack and control. it can allow individuals suffering from diabetes to use a sensor it can prevent high levels and help individuals with diabetes avoid the worst and most costly complications while remaining them to remain healthy until a cure is found. in may of this year, 250 members, including myself, sent a letter to the f.d.a. urging them to approval the artificial pan crewas. i'm encouraged by f.d.a.'s response to have a decision by december, and i would hope they would give technology for the studies. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

. mr. brady: two years after passing the stimulus and unemployment -- unemployment remains at staggering levels. despite billions of dollars still sitting in government coffers. it was -- mr. thompson: it was my hope the president would offer real economic relief. while some of his proposals merit consideration, sms no substitute for the targeted, long-term policies needed to facilitate an economic climate where businesses have the confidence to hire workers and take on new endeavors. we're not talking about real, pro-growth tax reform and regulatory relief because it sounds good. it's what our economy needs, and badly. it's time for congress, both chamber, and the president, to recognize the pressing need for real tax relief and aggressive

regulatory reform. it's time for a new direction and action. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to commend the president for the american jobs act this bill gets squarely behind the program of putting our country back to work and rebuilding the nation. as you go around and talk to people, americans understand impligsly we have to rebuild this country and make it strong. mr. sarbanes thank that means a lot of things, but first and foremost it means investing in our infrastructure, rebuilding our tunnels and highways, and this would put resources toward that task, investing in human capital, education, innovation, technology, entrepreneurship. this would make sure that teachers go back to work to teach our young people in the classroom, investing in strong communities. this bill would support

resources for our firefighters, to put more police officers out there on the beat. that's investing in communities. we have to rebuild this country. the american jobs act does that let's pass the american jobs act and put this country back to work. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> this past weekend, california's central valley lost a great leader a leader in the dairy construction field a man that's been a supporter to many community causes such as the education foundation of stanislaus county and others. matt bruno operated the dairy which employs 65 employees. he played a keel roe -- key role in the expansion of dairy

farming, his family grew peaches, and grapes. he was act nive real estate, investing and commercial properties and in 1972, he fought -- he bought turlock refrigeration centers and the two were merged in 1974. matt bruno is survived by his wife, barbara, sons torkny and matt, his brother and sister. on this day, the house of representatives will celebrate his life. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> republican leaders have made the laughable accusation that the president is engaging in class warfare. what president obama is actually doing is ending class warfare, the relentless war on the middle class.

ms. schakowsky: since 1983, over 80% of the growth in income has gone to the richest 5% of americans while the bottom 60% has lost 7.5% in income of real income. that's a majority of americans that are doing worse. when i was growing up, a family could live a middle class life on one good job. often a good union job, public or private sector, with health benefits and pension. that was the normal. seems like the new normal in america, the one that i see the republicans promoting, is the rich get richer, the middle class is disappearing and the poor get even poorer. we need to enact bold laws like the president's american jobs act and common sense and fair budget proposals, both of which would help restore the middle class, protect the poor and keep america strong. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from mississippi rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. our nation is faced with 10% unemployment, rising out of control deficits, and the obama administration's solution, spend more, tax more, and regulate more. this has created an environment that's destroyed confidence and increased unemployment. instead, washington must create an environment favorable to job creation. mr. nunnelee: we must rein in out of control spending. this fall, we will vote on a balanced budget amendment that will require washington to do what families and small businesses already do. live within their means. we must remain focused on relieving the regulations that are choking job creation and lastly, we must concentrate on tax reform, not tax increases.

increased taxes are the enemy of job creation. the american people don't want more solutions from the federal government. they want the federal government to get out of the way. if we do those things, we will unleash the american economy and give businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: corporate profits have reached historically high levels, $2 trillion in the last two quarters. most of that profit comes from reductions in personnel and benefit costs, which are at a 50-year low as a percent of our economy. this is one of the reasons why the richest 1% earn as much as the bottom 60% and have as much wealth as the bottom 90% of americans. tax cuts for the richest, as

the house majority demands, is only going to widen this historic disparity. the president's jobs act, though, will help to close this gap. madam speaker, we're losing our middle class. our country is becoming divided between the very rich and the rest. that may be good for the financial base of the republican party, but it's bad for america. the private sector will start to hire when the public sector shows it has sufficient faith in our future to adequately invest in the physical and human infrastructure of this country thatic -- of this country. it takes money but the future of our middle class is worth it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> the american people want to be in the business of job creation an growth. unfortunately, washington is in the business of regulating, spending, and taxing.

this administration has barreled down the road of deficits and mandates. we all know where that road leads, right off a cliff. job creators know our $14.6 trillion debt is a tax on the american taxpayer. they know that higher taxes mean fewer jobs and they know that focusing on compliance rather than innovation is a failing business model. mr. stutzman: in the face of these difficult times, americans are optimistic. not even the worst unemployment since the great depression can kill the american spirit. washington can give job creators confidence by living within its means and reining in spending. americans are ready for real growth not another failed stimulus. let's pass a balanced budget amendment to require americans to -- congress to use common sense like other americans do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the

gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. we love you, carrie meek. and i am delighted to rise today to admit that carrie meek, congresswoman meek, was a mentor to me and someone who drew the admiration of republicans an democrats and did some unique and remarkable, if you will, activities here in this congress. one as a freshman she pushed enough to become a member of the appropriations committee, and led graciously in her tenure. then she worked very closely with republicans and democrats to fight to ensure that cigarette packages had warnings about the negative impact on groups like african-americans and carrie, do you remember the picture that we took with rosa parks and some of our colleagues and how gracious you were and do you remember the 25,000 people in florida when they were trying to overturn

affirmative action and yes, you walked as long as -- as long and hard as anyone else. i think the jobs bill the president has could be named after you. it will provide 80% compensation to small businesses to hire people, that sounds like carrie meek. i think we can resolve the c.r. and provide for those who have suffered disasters and do the right thing that sounds like carrie meek. so i'm here to pay tribute to our friend, carrie meek, and to thank her for sending her son, kendrick, who was a great friend and let you know we need to follow in the pathway of carrie meek that brings us all together, the path to jobs bill, a bill that could be named after you and protect those who have been harmed by natural disasters. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: this house has passed scores of legislation

out of the house over to the senate that would create millions of memp jobs yet the senate refuses to take action on them. what do we get from the president? we get more of the same class warfare and failed stimulus legislation. the first stimulus was such a disaster, we had a hearing last week that exposed the solyndra scandal, the poster child for the stimulus bill two years ago and what happens the taxpayers are on the hook for over $530 million thrown away by this company that the president called a year ago the future of this country. i don't want a future of bankruptcy. yops a future of can dal. i don't want a future of radical regulations and class warfare this president has given to this country. we need to create american jobs and get these regulators off the backs of small business owners. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. i want to thank frederica wilson for organizing the we love carrie meek one minute. mr. hastings: this is not funereal, it sounds that way, but this is a tribute to you. since you and i came here together along with corrine brown and sanford bishop and bennie thompson halfway, since he came a little later, i speak for them as well. eddie bernice cowl not be here but asked that i recite a portion of her remarks that is that your career in the house was distinguished as well as that in the state level. almost immediately the congresswoman established herself as champion of expanding federal programs to create jobs and providing

initiatives for african-american business owners. in a bat that will is still being fought today, congresswoman meek passionately opposed cuts to social welfare programs in the 1990's to prevent the financial burden from being carried on the backs of the middle class and disadvantaged. i have the distinction of offering eddie bernice's full remarks and compliments and congratulations from all of our class that came here in 1992 and an even greater distinction of speaking with carrie perhaps as much or more than most of the members with regularity and sharing with our -- with her the number of jokes and a number of anecdotes that we have together. i as well as all of us are proud of you, carrie and the enormous work you have done and that you will continue to do through the foundation. thanks again for sending kendrick to us as well. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members that they will address their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 74, house resolution 406, resolved that at any time after the dotchings this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b 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. 2401 to requireage cease of the cumulative and incremental impact of certain rules and actions of the environmental protection agency and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be diintentioned with, all points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. 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 the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill. . the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. 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 on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 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, madam speaker. and for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from

florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purpose of debate only, and i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you, again, madam speaker. this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2401, the transparency and regulatory analysis of impact on the nation. train. it makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 received by the rules committee of the two not made one was withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane. here is a rule that's quite frankly not bad. it's going to provide for an open discussion of those interested in this particular issue on the floor. it's a very fair rule and it continues the record of the

rules committee in this congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which simply conform to the rules of the house. that's been the goal of our chairman, mr. dreier, and say what you will, he's produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we'll be having on the floor in the past as well as in the future. there are a lot of people that say congress is simply dysfunctional. i admit the system was designed to be complex, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have very little contact with the system, that simply stand up and say, why can't you just reach across the aisle, find some compromise and work in a bipartisan manner? to those people who are continually asking for that, you got it. it's here today in this particular bill. the discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill. it was a republican and democrat sponsor. first hearings of this bill were done back in april, so they have done their due diligence in studying the issue and working the bill.

they scrapped the first bill and reintroduced another which had a bipartisan sponsorship of the bill. you will find republicans and democrats. even in the final voting committee. one republican voted against it and 29% of the democrats voting -- actually voted for it. this is a process to be enveed. if you want a good system -- envied. if you want a good system and a bill that comes in a bipartisan manner, this is it. we know that business is impacted by both legislation and regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on jobs. the current e.p.a. appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting powers and control where that power has not been expressly delegated by congress. i'm sure while every member

wants to have clean air and clean water, they are vital objectives and laudable goals. however, i think many would agree that some of the current issues in some areas have gone beyond what congress ever intended or ever improved and far beyond common sense. it has not helped the economic health of this country which is why i commend the sponsors, both sides of the aisle who recognize this problem and have come up with this legislation to fix the problem. the underlying bill, h.r. 2401, simply says to the e.p.a. and potentially other agencies, stop, slow down, take a more careful look at what you're doing or proposing to do. take a serious and methodical look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping and confusing or contradictory rules and regulations to those already on the books. it tells them to do an analysis

of alternative strategies that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as our fragile economy. this bill tells e.p.a. and others that before certain draft regulations go in effect that it actually needs to study and consider the cumulative impacts of these new rules and regulations on production, on costs, on jobs, on our nation's global competitiveness. imagine that. imagine a federal agency seeking to institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. who could impose such a concept? it is just common sense. there will be some that will complain when the bill is discussed or even the rule, this is trying to dismantle the e.p.a. no programs are cut by this process. nothing is changed by this process. some will stand up and say, oh, it's going to be a biased

study. there are no limit to what the agency can study. what this bill does is it makes sure what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored. are there some specific things that has to be considered? yeah, that's right. because we specifically identified what has been ignored. there is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. it just says for the agencies, for heaven's sake, get the facts first. this holds the agencies accountable, enforces them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they implement it. this is a good bill, and it is a very good rule, and i'd urge adoption of both. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 2401.

i do thank my colleague, mr. bishop, for granting the time for the opposition. this bill is really another attempt by the republican leadership to demonize the environmental protection agency . and dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our nation's public health and the environment. h.r. 2401 is a waste of time and an absolute insult to the millions of americans without jobs. instead of crafting legislation to increase consumer confidence, instead of helping americans hold on to their homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who

are unemployed, instead of releaving the burden of the middle class by making the tax code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the e.p.a. from finalizing and implementing two of the most significant air quality regulations in decades. coal plants -- let me lay this out here. i do believe in clean coal. it's the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the united states. they pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. mercury contaminates more than six million acres of freshwater lakes, and i just want to take a moment of talking about one. i was born in an area called

mobile. at one point my grandfather could tell my grandmother, i'm going to go down to the lake and catch some fresh and guarantee that was going to be the case and bring it back home in short time. now, that lake is dead and it's because of mercury contamination that that lake is dead. 46,000 miles of streams and the stream that led into lake mobile is dead and 245,000 acres of wetlands across the united states and all 50 states have some type of fish consumption advisory. let me repeat that. all 50 states have some type of fish consumption advisory. what's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean air rules that my friends are trying to block. the e.p.a. estimate that the mercury -- estimates that the mercury in air toxics alone

could eliminate 36,000 construction jobs and long-term jobs that could benefit pipe fitters, boilermakers and others. the economic value of air quality improvement totals $59 billion to $140 billion annually. that's 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution. over 11,000 heart attacks. more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a significant portion of them being children. over 12,200 additional visits to the emergency rooms of our country. and hundreds of thousands of missed work days. overall, the e.p.a. predicts that the monetary value of protecting americans' health through implementing the clean air act is projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone.

yet, this bill ignores those benefits. madam speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great nation has been through tough economic times before. environmental regulations are not the problem. the economy was really tough and we are reminded of it often by my colleagues under president carter. yet, the e.p.a. at that time managed to set new national air pollution standards for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone layer-destroying gases from aerosol spray product. nor has the protecting the environment always been part of the issue. the e.p.a. has also had great success under republican presidents. from founding the e.p.a. in

1970, president richard nixon said the following -- we can no longer afford to consider air and water common property. free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard. that was in 1970. one of the first tasks assigned to the e.p.a. was to enforce the clean air act. also signed by president nixon. since its adoption, these regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths. during president reagan's administration, the e.p.a. tested elementary and secondary tested elementary and secondary schools