we're trying to do those to make sure, that we don't exempt folks have having the information they might need to have before they make an investment in this entirely new and here to for unregulated marketplace. the gentleman's also concerned about the fact that there's yet another website. we're just talking about a page here. that can be readily linked so the person looking at the information that the insure wants to make available to the public, they can just hit on one lunk a -- link and go someplace else immediately, get all the information that they need or the information they don't need. they can read it or not read it. mr. mchenry: will the gentleman yield? the legislative text on line 4 specifies establish a website. mr. barrow: yeah. a website page. in a site in the internet and worldwide web can be just one page that has all the information that you need. and reclaiming my time, the main concern that i've got is that the investment protections the gentleman refers to in the bill suffers from the problem of being both overinclusive and underinclusive. on the one hand it gives the s.e.c. comprehensive authority

to require that certain information be made available and the person be tested and answer questions on the information that the s.e.c. requires that they demonstrate competence on. this could suffer from underinclusion of the -- if the s.e.c. doesn't ask or insist that the person have the most minimal information, it could be incredibly overinclusive if the s.e.c. wants to use the authority given by the bill as written to require that the investor demonstrate competence on a million things, just think of the terms and conditions in the typical software download program and if someone's got to answer a question about every sentence in there you can actually give the s.e.c. the authority and you're kind of inviting them to go into this offering and require competence on all kinds of stuff the person doesn't need. oftentimes as emerson said, a glimpse has what an on secures has. they can read it or not read it. they can heed it or not heed it, but it won't gum up the offering. it won't get between what the issuer wants to make available

in order to make the sale and the information the person needs in order to decide whether or not this is the right place to make this kind of investment. with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: may i inquire of the chair the remaining time on both side? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 30 second remaining. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: with that i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: i certainly appreciate my colleague's intent. but i am simply uncomfortable with requiring facilitators or these intermediaries we create in this legislation of what is an exempt offering under securities law to actually link to the s.e.c.'s website. it gives the stamp of approval of sorts, it seems to me, of this exempt offering. it actually might create more

confusion, not necessarily by the gentleman's intent but by the design of the legislation before us, by the legislative text that we have here in his amendment and unfortunately that is not helpful. actually would be hurtful to this matter and that's why i have to oppose it. now, i am hopeful that when this legislation is signed into law by the president that the securities and exchange commission of office of education and investor advocacy would create an investor alert, which is their standard process, regarding crowdfunding investments like the s.e.c. did with the microcap stock, a guide to investors, which is available on the s.e.c.'s existing website. and that's the concern here. we want to make sure this is done appropriately. we currently are operating in

securities law that originated, you know, over 75 years ago or roughly 75 years ago, so we want to make sure we get this right. unfortunately this amendment is ill crafted and that's why we have to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. beiro: i thank the chair. -- mr. barrow: i thank the chair. yield myself. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: i'm concerned, too, about the stamp of approval, the so-called good housekeeping seal of approval available now in a total brand new marketplace. i'm concerned about the opposite, in fact, that not having the right information in front of them now. as written, the s.e.c. prescribes all kinds of information, that the person has to demonstrate confidence in. it would get the s.e.c. out of the conversation, provide a link where a person can go someplace else and see what they want to see without

getting between the issuer and customer. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. mr. mchenry: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the statement of administrative policy from the executive office of the president dated november 2, 2011. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-265. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-265 offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 453, the gentleman

from colorado, mr. perlmutter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: this is the amendment we have been visiting about over the course of the bill. the structure the bill as much it solicits -- an issuer can solicits via the internet or some other mass tipe media and that -- mass-type media and that information is made to the securities and exchange commission. once that notification is made, then notice of the solicitation on the internet, this crowdfunding so to speak, is then given to each state so that the state regular -- regulators, the state enforcers is given solicitation of this crowdfunding for request of sale of securities. the amendment that mr. mchenry and i have prepared makes sure that when the states get this

notice they can use their police powers, their enforcement authority to make sure that the issuer or anyone involved with the solicitation, anyone involved with this crowdfunding, which is being used across the internet, can then -- the laws can be enforced to stop any kinds of fraud, defallcation of funds, embezzlement, misrep acts related to the solicitation under crowdfunding. this applies to both the issuer and the intermediaries, anybody holding the funds will still be subject to the police powers of the state. so we maintain the states' rights for police power, and i would yield a minute to my -- i would yield to my friend from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i thank my friend from colorado for offering this

amendment. i thank him for -- madam chair, i thank my colleague for working diligently across the aisle. ais full committee markup and we worked diligently to get that done. at full committee markup it was not able to be done but the language we have here today is a very good amendment. the amendment ensures that the states' securities regulators have the means to place unlawful behavior to protect -- police unlawful behavior to protect investors. they can examine unlawful behavior at a microlevel, it's essential this legislation recognize and authorize them to continue to fight unlawful conduct. the powers of states' securities regulators for crowdfunding are no different than what is that which they

have for any covered security. and with that i thank my colleague for offering this amendment and yield back. mr. perlmutter: and i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: i am not opposed to this hegs. i thank my colleague for offering it and if he's prepared to close i would -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. mchenry: i'd be happy to yield to my colleague from north carolina. >> i was rising to claim time in opposition because i am oppose. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina will control five minutes. mr. watt: beg your pardon? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. watt: and let me say this. this is kind of an awkward situation because we did have this discussion in committee. we were advised in committee

that the preemption language would be corrected between the committee and the floor. it was revised, and the amendment does take a step in the right direction, so i won't ask for a recorded vote on the amendment, but it doesn't take a step far enough in the right direction because the amendment allows states -- it still preempts states were having the prereview of these offerings that they now have even though it reserves to them the authority to do something about fraud, it does not reserve to them the authority to get involved in the review process. and in that sense it continues to preempt state law. so i want to applaud my

friends, both mr. mchenry and mr. perlmutter for making a step in the right direction but this still preempts state law and states ought to have the prerogatives to be involved in this. the state of north carolina, from which mr. mchenry hails, the secretary of state is adamantly of the opinion and i agree with her that this amendment does not go far enough. when we get back in the full house and i can offer a letter into the record, it will note that the north american securities administrators association does not think the amendment goes far enough to protect states' rights. so i'm not accusing anybody of

bad faith. i think they made a good faith effort to try to find grounds, but this raises the exact issue that i raised in the committee which is -- which was the appropriate place to have done this and made this amendment and thought it out would have been in the committee, not on the floor of the house. and when you leave it to just a couple of individuals to work out something between committee and the floor of the house, sometimes it doesn't get to where people would like for it to be. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from north carolina two, two minutes.

mr. perlmutter: there is too many north carolinaians around here. mr. mchenry: will the gentleman yield? mr. perlmutter: which gentleman from north carolina has two minutes? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. mr. perlmutter: i yield to my other friend from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i want to thank mr. perlmutter for working with us on this language. he raised significant concerns, and the language that we have that the gentleman was integral in crafting actually is perhaps part of the reason why the president supports the legislation. and i appreciate mr. perlmutter working diligently on this. i would remind my colleagues in our legislative hearing on this bill, the democrat witness before the committee said that crowdfunding will not work but for this exemption from individual state registration.

it's a very key part of this process. when it costs $150 to register a security in connecticut and all you're trying to do is raise $150 from connecticut, you net $0. and beyond that, asking a lawyer to file the paperwork. we want to preserve that anti-fraud bit that the states do very well at and we have done that with this language and i yield back to my colleague. mr. perlmutter: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman, mr. watt from north carolina. mr. watt: and i yield myself the balance of the time. i want to express my thanks to mr. perlmutter and to my colleague from north carolina, mr. mchenry. as i indicated, they made an effort to move this in the right direction. they in fact moved it. this amendment is better than the underlying bill which totally preempted state law, so

it moves in the right direction . it just does not move far enough in the right direction. and because of that -- i mean, i'm not going to vote against the amendment. i'm not even going to ask for a recorded vote on the amendment itself, but it will make it necessary for me to oppose the bill itself and i thought it was important enough for me to come down and express this because there are a significant number of people out there, including a number of state attorneys' generals and/or secretaries of state who believe this does not go far enough. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. . mr. perlmutter: the purpose of this is to have, in effect, a national notification nationally

to the s.e.c. and then the powers of the state kick in as opposed to individual notification state by state. and i appreciate his concern. it's legitimate, but to make this work, you have to have a structure that allows for the national offering, notice to the states and then the states' police powers kick in as well as the s.e.c.'s police powers, if there is any misrepresentation or fraud and the like and i urge adoption. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted. the committee will rise

informally. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate insists amendments to the bill h.r. 2112 and making appropriations for the rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies and agree to a conference with the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 roof rule 18, unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment

number 4 printed in part a of 112-265 on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of 112-265 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 189 and the nays are 234 and the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have

it and the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2930 and pursuant to house resolution 453 reports the the house. in a separate demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the securities laws to provide for registration for certain securities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take your conversations from the well. the house will be in order. if members will please take their conversations from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. holt: may we have order first, mr. speaker? i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. holt of new jersey moves to recommit the bill -- >> point of order is reserved. the clerk: committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendments, page 5, line 22, section a and insert subsections a and g of

sections 4-a. strike the quotation marks and following the period and insert after such line the following, g, prohibition, non-intermediary doing business with iran. one, in general, in purposes of section 46, a person acting as an intermediary in the issueance of securities may not directly or indirectly a, own any share or interest in a person doing business with the government of iran or b, be affiliated with any person who is or who directly or indirectly owns any share or interest in a person who is doing business with the government of iran. two, construction, for purposes of this subsection, the term government of iran shall include any agent or instrumentality owned or controlled by the government of iran. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: i want to make one thing clear the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. if this amendment is adopted it would be incorporated into the bill and acted upon. as written, the underlying bill would not prevent -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. will members please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may resume. mr. holt: as written, the underlying bill would not prevent potential beneficiaries of this act from doing business with the government of iran, whose rowing interests threaten our interests and through their terrorist intermediaries and

it's a gaping loophole that this final amendment would close. the u.s. has a comprehensive embargo against the government of iran. recent events have reminded us exactly how clever the agents of the government of iran can be in circumventing international law in an effort to keep funds flowing to the iranian dictatorship. we saw that last week over the debate of in a mining bill. the link between an american company and iranian company was discussed at length. may we have order, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. members, please take their conversations from the floor mr. holt: mr. deutch offered the republican majority an opportunity to close the loopholes in the mining bill that could benefit iranian entities. regrettably that amendment was defeat odd a party-line vote.

i come to offer the majority another chance. the bill here on the floor today would leave the door open to similar abuses. this final amendment would close any loopholes in the embargo by targeting intermediaries, those who run web sites and those who act as broker dealers who are providing help to unaffiliated issuers to do business around the globe. this final amendment mandates that those who want to benefit from the provisions of this bill must not have any interest in doing business with the government of iran. furthermore, they cannot be affiliated with any person who is doing business directly or indirectly with the government of iran. if, mr. speaker, this is a serious amendment. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may resume. mr. holt: this final amendment is a commonsense safeguard

measure. we all know that iran's dictatorial regime is feeling the pinch from the sanctions that the united states has already imposed. the radical clerics that control iran are constantly searching to get the money and goods they need to stay in power and threaten our interests and through their terrorist intermediaries to threaten our ally israel. this bill would provide them a possible opening. this final amendment to the bill will help slam shut the door for that option. i urge all of us to support this final amendment to the bill. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. mchenry: i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. mr. mchenry: i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

the gentleman may continue. mr. mchenry: we have had two subcommittee hearings on capital formation. this issue was not raised. we had a subcommittee legislative hearing. this issue was not raised. we had a subcommittee markup. this issue was not raised. we had a full committee markup where we incorporated every democrat idea into this legislation. it is outrageous for the minority party to come to this level, to stoop to this level of taking our important national security issues -- the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may continue. mr. mchenry: through hours of debate in crafting a bipartisan bill. i thought -- i thought they were

better than that. i did. i thought we could get through this and pass this bill. the president announced his support, a statement of administrative policy says pass this bill. he says we can't wait. and what does his party do? offer an amendment that is already existing law. it is outrageous to play this political stunt with something so important as our national security. i ask my colleague to withdraw this motion to recommit, so we can get to final passage and get going. will my colleague withdraw? will my colleague withdraw? will my colleague withdraw? mr. holt: is the gentleman seeking to yield time? mr. mchenry: yes or no. mr. holt: if this is such a noncontroversial amendment, i ask the gentleman to accept it. mr. mchenry: reclaiming my time.

i ask my colleagues, do you want to allow small businesses that are starved for capital to raise capital? do you want to allow that to happen? vote this down and get to final passage and get this economy moving. we can't wait. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. holt: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded voit will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9, rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote and will be followed five-mivent vote on the passage of h.r. 2930 and adoption of h.r. 2940 by mr. miller of north carolina.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 187, the nays are 237. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of

the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 407, the nays are 17. the bill is passed. and without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of amendment number 1 printed in house report of 112-265 by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. miller of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the adoption of the amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 190, the nays are 234, the motion is not adopted. the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to direct the securities and exchange commission to eliminate the prohibition against general slisstation as a requirement for a certain exemption under regulation b. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. and if we could have order, we could expedite this. the speaker pro tempore: members will take their conversations from the well of the floor.

members, please take your conversations from the floor. members, please clear the well of the floor. is the gentleman opposed to the bill. mr. defazio: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. defazio of oregon moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2940 with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendment. mr. defazio: i ask unanimous consent that we suspend with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> mr. speaker, point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. without objection, the amendment is considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. mr. defazio: mr. speaker, i ask to have the reading suspended because i want to expedite things and i have listened to the debate on the previous motion to recommit. this will not delay the bill. in fact, if we adopt this motion by voice vote, we can move on to passage of the legislation, which i believe enjoys broad, bipartisan support. i know we all have tremendous pride of authorship in legislation, we write or move to the floor. and that's to be understood, but sometimes bills are not quite perfect. and i would look at this amendment, which narrows the scope of the bill, that is, it says basically, that we are opening up a new way for small businesses and other undertakings to offer their -- you know a share of stock in their business to the public in

order to raise capital and grow and employ folks. and that's great. everybody here supports that. wer though, however, i think we should adopt one minor restriction to that, one that would narrow the scope of the bill and it's quite simple. it says these new rules apply to everyone except persons who have been convicted of fraud in connection with the financial transaction, including predatory leapeding to a veteran. it seems to me that there should be unanimous support for that. nobody wants to open up this new vehicle for small businesses and others to gain investors. we certainly don't want to open it up to people convicted of fraud in connection with a financial transaction or predatory lending to a veteran. does anybody think we should allow those who were convicted

of fraud or predatory lending to be allowed to engage in this? if so, raise your hand. >> no. >> i would hope we can move along very quickly to this amendment and adopt it by voice vote. it is a commonsense amendment and it addresses the potential for abuse for those who have a proven record of fraud due to conviction. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mrs. mccarthy: i -- mr. carter: i rise to speak in opposition. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. >> it never creases to amaze me.

not once, but twice today, you have taken two bills on the floor that have gone through subcommittee, full committee, unanimously and came down. this bill accepted every single amendment that came to rules. this bill accepted maxine waters amendment in the committee. had the gentleman listened to the debate on the floor you would have heard from your side of the aisle support of this bill. had the gentleman talked and listened about this bill itself, it has nothing to do with lending and let me tell you why. when i was 20 years old, i started my first small business. do you know what the zpwoft does for a small business? if you are someone like me and come from the wrong side of the

track, they punish you. they say you can't find money from a source unless you have a previous relationship. it dates back to 1933. the only thing that this bill does is correct that problem. it opens it up for an individual that has to be accredit ted. this has nothing to do with lending. i would tell the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, maybe you are not used to a regular order and open order because your side of the aisle did not play that way in the majority --. i will tell you the committee acted as the american people wanted it to. unanimously, working on small business and job creation.

america's look for partnership, not partisanship. i will not yield. you did not take the time to read the bill, understand the bill and you brought a motion that does not deal with the bill. >> the gentleman did not raise his hand when asked if anyone convicted of fraud -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. all persons will suspend. the chair will remind the members to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from california may resume. mr. mccarthy: the bill does one thing. the number one thing the american people are looking for. create more jobs. less partisanship and more small businesses. i urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and support the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to

recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a record vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 190, the nays are 236, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 413, the nays are 11. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 2940 and h.r. 2930, the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers and cross references and to make suchor technical and conforming changes to accurately the actions 69 house. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 6913 and the order of the house of january 5, 2011 of the following members of the house to the congressional executive commission on the peoples republic of china. the clerk: mr. honda of california. ms. kaptur of ohio.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 455, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2838, to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition. >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thomas houser is soldier of the year. specialist houser is a native of my district, ohio's first congressional district. and a graduate of high school in my district. without question, specialist houser has distinguished himself as the best of thes. this army-wide competition culminated in a final round of 12 soldiers being tested in a wide array of skill sets to include physical fitness, urban war tactics, battlefield scenario tests and a variety of drills. specialist houser serves as a proud member of the 563rd

military police company, 91st military battalion. congratulations on this great accomplishment. you made all the folks back home in cincinnati proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor one of the legends of college football, penn state's football coach joe paterno and scored his 409 victory as head coach. it took place on a snowy afternoon where they defeated the university of illinois. he becomes the most winningest

coach. if this wasn't extraordinary by itself, all 409 wins have come as head coach of one school, penn state. starting his football career in 1950 as an assistant coach, his tenure has spanned over 62 years. his record is truly unrivaled passing bear bryant of alabama, bobbie bowden. coach paterno has led his team with humility, class and integrity. words can't describe his contributions to the penn state community. i stand to recognize coach paterno. the winningest coach in college football. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, as we near veterans day i want to pay special tribute to my friend, first sergeant david mcamericany. here's a photograph of him here to my left. after high school in ohio houston, david volunteered and enlisted in the united states navy. he spent two tures of duty in korea. and after leaving the navy in 1953 he joined the united states army. in 1962 mcnerney was one of the first 500 soldiers stoned vietnam. during thinks third tour of duty in vietnam he was stationed near the cambodian border and in march of 1967 he and his company were sent to recover a missing reconnaissance team. coming under heavy vietnamese attack, mcnerney was wounded by a grenade and its commander was killed. nonetheless mcnerney continued to fight, calling in close

artillery fire. he destroyed an enemy mg, pulled wounded to safety and he secured a landing zone for medical hospitals. and he refused to be evacuated himself. his actions stopped the enemy advance and saved his own men's lives. his valor earned him -- earned first sergeant mcnerney the congressional medal of honor and was presented to him by president johnson. then mcnerney volunteered yet again for a fourth tour of duty in vietnam. after serving in the army and the navy, mcnerney returned to crosby, texas, and last year my friend, first sergeant mcnerney, died in texas still a patriot. mr. speaker, where does america get such men as these? these warriors, these rare breed? these americans? and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

>> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to inform my colleagues of yet more beatings and arrests of opposition leaders by the castro dictatorship in cuba. early this week a man, winner of the human rights award in 2010, was beaten and arrested by castro's thugs while visiting another dissident on a hunger strike at a hospital in the santa clara province. according to his mother, he was not allowed into the hospital and was arrested. rivenrive a state security agent -- mr. rivera: a state security agent held him in place and beat him. he is a dissident journalist who has advocated for a free press and against internet censorship. while also participating in various hunger strikes asking for the release of political prisoners. on monday cuban state security officials also arrested prominent dissident jorge garcia

and his wife at the same hospital and proceeded to drag them through the street. while some across the world continue to ignore the brutal reality of repression and human rights abuses in cuba, even pushing for -- appeasement of the castro tyrant, these heroes continue fighting for freedom and democracy. let us not forget their brave struggle. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. shimkus: unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. and before my freshmen colleagues get to too concerned, i'm only going to go a couple of minutes and talk about what i've been coming to the floor once each week is to hold debate of the high level of nuclear waste and a national repository that is defined in law, a law passed in 1982, that national repository would be at yucca mountain. so i've been going through a geography lesson about where we have nuclear waste in this country and comparing it to the site at yucca mountain and then addressing how our colleagues on the senate side from those states, what their positions are. the house has spoke be on yucca mountain and again this year in a vote in which 297 of my colleagues joined me in ensuring that we had enough money to finish the scientific study to

finally bring closure to yucca mountain and start, if the science is sound, then start moving high level nuclear waste from all over this country to a single repository. so, today i come to the floor to highlight another location and this is yucca mountain, i want to remind folks that yucca mountain has no nuclear waste onsite right now. the waste once it gets to yucca mountain will be stored 1,000 feet underground. it will be 1,000 feet -- the nuclear waste will be 1,000 feet above the groundwater. and yucca mountain is 100 miles from the colorado river. so it's pretty far, it's in a mountain, it's in a desert, it is pretty far from ever being close to major bodies of water. and what's been interesting is

as we go around geographically we find that we have high level nuclear waste right next to major rivers and major lakes throughout the country. this is one of the most compelling sites in our tour so far. this is a nuclear power plant in california called santa ana free. yes, this is the ocean. here's a nuclear power plant, and these are waves that are coming up across to the rocky shoreline and a concrete barrier that leads to the nuclear power plant. now, compare this with yucca mountain. there are 2,300 waste rods, that's nuclear waste rods material, onsite here right next to the pacific ocean.

the nonyucca mountain in the desert. the waste is stored above the ground and in pools here. the waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground at yucca mountain. the waste here is adjacent to the pacific ocean. you can see the waves. yucca mountain's in a desert. and it's 100 miles from the colorado river. this is 45 miles from san diego, yucca mountain is over 100 miles from las vegas, nevada. so if you want to compare and contrast where we should have nuclear waste, would it be next to the pacific ocean or should it be in a desert underneath a mountain? i would think most americans, my colleagues agree on the house floor, based upon our 297-vote total, that it should be in a

geological repository underneath a mountain in a desert. so let's look at the surrounding senators and what is their current positions as far as we can determine. senator boxer says if the yucca project is constructed there will be thousands of shipments of high level nuclear waste transported through california. she voted no on yucca mountain in 2002. senator feinstein, after fukushima daiichi, has said, i had always thought we didn't need one. yesterday, and that was the day after the damage done because of the damage in japan, yesterday candidly changed my mind. now, she voted no to yucca in 2002. i think she might be reconsidering. senator kyle, let's go first

with senator mccain. he voted yes in 2002. i was absolutely opposed to its closure, referring to yucca mountain. it's absolutely ridiculous to not have yucca mountain after developing it over a 20-year process. i would agree with senator mccain. we've only spent $12.5 billion for yucca mountain, think it's time that we finished the project. senator kyle is quoted, these are the two senators from arizona, next to california, is quoted and he used this example of just everyday residential waste. he says, it is a little like saying since every wednesday morning everybody in my area of phoenix is going to put their garbage out and because we keep producing garbage we should not have a dump to where all that garbage is taken. we produce more garbage and store it onsite, it's in effect storing it on the curb. that doesn't argue for the

proposition that there should be -- there should not be a central repository were that material -- where that material is taken and disposed of in a proper way. so i come back down to the floor to highlight another location where you have high level nuclear waste near a major body of water, pat civic ocean, not in the desert as defined by law we should. other states and locations that i've talked about, i first went to hanford, which is high level nuclear waste, 23 million gallons and tanks that are leaking a mile from the columbia river. then i went to zion -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. shimkus: i will yield. >> the gentleman makes a great point. zion is just a sheer couple of miles from my district, right along the coast of lake michigan. next to 95% of the fresh drinking water, surface freshwater in the united states. mr. dold: and we're storing just literally yards off the shore of

lake michigan, spent fuel rods. that is obviously not the place to be doing that and my understanding, correct me if i'm wrong, that younga mountain, we're talking about 1,000 feet underground, 1,000 feet above the water table, and at least 100 miles away from most of the individuals and inhabitants that are around. a perfect place. and we've spent $14 billion constructing it. it seems like common sense that we want this waste not around freshwater, not around some of the urban areas, but in a place specifically designed as yucca mountain is. mr. shimkus: as my colleague knows, reclaiming my time, senator kirk is strongly in support of moving high level nuclear waste to yucca mountain. senator durbin said the right things. we just want him now to lead on that issue for the importance of the state of illinois. another week i talk about the savannah river site. nuclear waste right on the savannah river. highlighted the senators there and now i end up this week

talking about california. and this is not the only nuclear power plant that's on the pacific ocean. there's one in california. i appreciate my colleagues for allowing me this time to do my weekly process of talking about high level nuclear waste. it is the law of the land and we're going to continue to work hard until we get this done and we move -- have a central repository for high level nuclear waste in las vegas, in nevada, at yucca mountain. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. to continue the leadership hour.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. mr. speaker, tonight i'm joined by several of my colleagues from the freshmen class to talk about some of the greatest issues facing our country. what we are going to do in this country to get our job creators back on their feet so that we can do something to address the unacceptably high levels of unemployment. for the past 11 months in this congress we have been focused on what it would take to get government out of the way and let job creators do what they do best. that's put people back to work. how can we restore the economic growth of this country? obviously as part of that you look at so many of the policies that this country has, whether they're regulations, whether it's overspending, tax policy, but it all starts right here in the house of representatives of what we are going to do, the policies that we are going to pass to get this country hiring again. mr. gardner: over the past several months this is the 32 nt month in a row actually where

unemployment has exceeded 8%. for 32 months the consecutive months the unemployment rate has been at or above 8%. back when the stimulus was passed they said that if it was passed the unemployment rate would never exceed 8%. but we're in the 32nd month in a row of unemployment over 8%. 14 million people, the number of americans who are unemployed. the number of net jobs the economy has shed from february, 2009, when the stimulus was signed into law, 2.2 million people losing their work. the unemployment rate among job seekers between the age of 16 and 19 is 24 6%. this country faces a crisis -- 24.6%. this country faces a crisis. it's the crisis of jobs. we have risen to the task to make sure we're creating policies to get this country back to work. the house of representatives for the past 11 months has worked hard to pass legislation, to find ways to get the private sector moving again and i'd start with a number of bills

that we've called the for then 15. and the forgotten 15 are a number of bills that this house has passed, many with strong bipartisan support. to get job creators going again, to get the private sector invigorated, hiring once again. you can see a number of these bills reducing regulatory burdens act. my bill, h.r. 2021, number seven on the list, this bill if signed into law by the president would create 54,000 jobs. 54,000 jobs around the country creating opportunities to develop american energy. and american energy security. these 15 bills, there's actually more now. this is just the beginning, the forgotten 15. and the question i hear in town meeting after town meeting is, where are those jobs? i want to show you another chart that shows where those jobs are. you see the forgotten 15, we did a little search, a google search and the google search showed us that the jobs are right here in the united states senate, they are waiting to be passed by the united states senate.

where are the jobs? the forgotten 15 is piling up in the senate. the bills that we have passed, bills like the jobs and energy permitting act that would create 54,000 jobs waiting in the united states senate. waiting to be acted on, waiting to be moved, waiting to be signed by the president of the united states. we've got a great conversation tonight. i hope participation for some -- from some colleagues around the country will shed some light. the gentleman from illinois. >> i'm wondering if the jobs will we passed would add 16 and 17 on the list. >> i yield to the gentlelady from alabama. >> it's 22. our work today on the floor put the forgotten 15 to to a numb of 22. mrs. roby: i don't know if you're ready for us to start this discussion but i would just like to read a couple of

words, we have all been carrying around, where are the jobs, everybody has theirs, i'm sure, in their pockets to remine the people of the united states of america of these bills and what we have den to -- done to reduce regular raher to burden, to aru offshore drilling an even today, the access to capital an access for entrepreneurs right here on the floor minutes ago. but i found myself looking at the czar russ, looking for a good word for forgotten, because now we're at 22. instead of picking a great keyword, although there is one, we can look at words like abandon, blanked out, blotted out, omitted, left behind, drew a blank, but the best one is slipped one's mind. i think as americans we have to ask ourselves, what's on the

minds of those in the democrat majority in the senate? because if they were to get out an travel around their district and look into the eyes of the people who are without jobs, who can't put food on the table, who are struggling to make ends meet, i think it might slip them right back into reality. the president is saying over and over and over again, we can't wait. yet now we've got the tardy 22. these bills need to be voted on by the senate. it's been over 900 days since they have even passed a budget. this is unconscionable. this is the united states of america. the greatest nation in the world. and yet we have a senate that is unwilling to do the job that the people of america sent them here to do. so as we continue true this discussion here tonight, we need to focus on the tardy 2, the bill that was yet to be voted on by the senate. i thank my friend from colorado

for having this hour tonight and with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady from alabama and the gentleman from illinois who pointed out that with the addition of the bills that passed just today we added to the bill that was passed the house, many with strong, bipartisan support, that number now reaching 22. mr. gardner: the bills that would create thousands and thousands of jobs around the country, regular niced by those on both sides of the aisle as pills that would do what it takes to create jobs. i yield to the gentleman from new york. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding, putting this hour together. joining my fellow freshman members on the floor of the house to talk about the number one issue of the day, our economy. that is jobs.

i come here to tell the american people that we are going to be open and honest that re-- and rely on the private sector to create jobs so that hardworking americans, hardworking taxpayers have the tun to take care of their children for generations to come by having a good, solid job. i'm looking at the vote fallly if the votes we took a moment ago that added to the forgotten 15, the last two of the tardy 22, and you look eat this numbers. on passage, it was 47-17. it was 413-11 -- it was 407-17, it was 413-11. that is almost unbelievable bipartisan support for two bills that will create a

stronger, private sector america so we can put people back to work. and yet we continue to engage in partisan politics in the senate. and we don't even allow these bills to have a vote on the floor of the senate, at least to be debated in an open and honest debate and argument about their merits, be heard by all americans, just like we do here in the house of representatives on the floor of the house. it's interesting, i listen to the president as he goes around and he's promoting his jobs act bill, i would say that i clearly have an impression that the president is concerned about his job but is he a really concerned about your job? he's spending an inordinate amount of time going around this country, rather than cominging here to washington, working with us in the house, working with the members in his own party in the senate, to say take up these bill have an

honest debate. if they strengthen the united states of america as all my colleagues say they would do, have that debate in the senate and move forward. we're going to stand and we're going to continue to work for hardworking taxpayers here in the house of representatives and i know my colleagues share in that sentiment. because that's what we came to washington to do. we came to washington as freshman members of congress, not to engage in politics, not to engage in partisan debate, but to talk about fundamental policy issues that are going to move us forward as a nation so that we can have the great experience we've all enjoyed, the opportunity we've all enjoyed, so all our fellow americans can give that opportunity not only to themselves, to their kids, to their brothers and sisters, so everyone can enjoy that

opportunity. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from colorado to continue this conversation. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from new york you bring up some great points in terms of what the american people are facing. when you look at congress, they see them passing the house, going over to the senate, asking where are the jobs over in the u.s. senate? i'll share with you some of the uncertainty that our constituents are facing. consumer confidence has plunged. a measure of americans' optimism about the economy and their personal financial situations dropped to its lowest level in two and a half years in october. cbs news had a poll this past month. americans say they feel worse about the economy than they have since the depths of the great recession. the great recession we're in now. the fact that americans feel worse about this time than they did about the great depression is unacceptable. we have addressed legislation, we have passed legislation to

deal with the uncertainty, to put people back to work and i know up with of the people who have worked, one of the ladies who worked very hard in this house to get people back to work, the gentlelady from washington, i would yield time to the gentlelady from washington. >> we're all here tonight because we believe that america is the greatest country on the face of the earth and it is so because of her people. folks in my neck of the woods in southwest washington are out of work. it's alarming. it's very alarming. i have family and close friends out of work for several years now, double digit unemployment. we've been at this rate for three or four years now. i had a jobs fair a couple of weeks ago, i in-- ewe invited employers who are hiring and put them together with job

seekers. we had over 1rks700 people show up. ms. herrera beutler: i was talking to men and women, young and old, very experienced, or fresh out of high school or college, who were looking to find work. experienced individuals who had that look on their face, some of them, of desperation. they're asking what is congress going to do? what is congress to going to do to help me find work to keep my mortgage, to put food on the table, what are you going to do? we're here to talk about some of the things we've already done. right now we want to put pressure on the other side of the rotunda to pass these bills and get some jobs flowing for the folks who stood in that parking lot. that was a success. we had over 30 people fine work and we have hundreds more in

interviews. great. i did that because i didn't think you could wait on an act of congress. watching those individuals on the other side of the rotunda who haven't passed any of these jobs bills, it did seem like a good idea. tonight we're applying appropriate pressure to that group, saying pass these bills. let me tell you about one bill that will make a human difference, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act. it's a simple bill. it's a very bipartisan bill. let me tell you about this bill. people throw around the word bipartisan, what does that mean? it means strong support from republicans an democrats. right here is h.r. 2250, that's the bill we passed off the house floor. these are the bills my friends on the other side of the aisle, here are the democrats who have sponsored this bill. we have folks in leadership, newer members, they have joined with the republican house here and passed the bill, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act, that the senate must take up.

if we are going to protect these jobs. these jobs hit all sorts of industry. there's a rule that the obama administration's e.p.a. has put forward that says business industry -- business, industry, hospital, anyone that has a boiler, you have to put in some cases, millions of dollars into this boiler to bring it up to some standard that standard hasn't been clearly defined an the e.p.a. said, can we take time to figure out what we're requiring of folks before we take major capital investments, capital investments that could be used to create more jobs. but these businesses will be required to put this money into an expenditure to bring this boiler up to some code that we can't prove has any environmental benefit, that's why you see so many folks who are advocaters in environment

co-sponsoring this bill. we could lose potentially 20,000 jobs nationwide. that's in the primary pulp and paper industry alone. not other industries. in the primary pulp and paper industry, that's 18% of that work force. at a time when we need to be creating jobs, we certainly -- we should be getting rid of regulations that cost us jobs. the way we do that is we get the senate to join with us and pass this bill, get it to the president's desk, get that man to sign that bill and move forward for the people in our communities. you know, the e.p.a., the obama administration's e.p.a. alone has estimated that that bill, or that regulation, if untouched will cost employers over $5 billion, almost $6 billion. and that's the low end number. the industries said it will be as high as $ billion. any way you look at it, that's a high price tag that's going to cost jobs.

over 2230,000 jobs are at risk if you count the related industries. so we're talking about major impacts to our national economy and all we have to do, all we have to do to protect those jobs is we need to pass this bill off the senate floor, get it to the president and get him to sign it into law. we really don't have time to wait. i have talked to the men and women, the moms and dads, the young people who are hoping to fine work. when we let some of our industry just go out, basically, it died, death by 1,000 cuts, death by a thousand regulations, shame on this institution. congress does need to about. i implore my colleagues on the other side they have rotunda to join with us in a bipartisan fashion, send this bill to the president and have the president sign it. >> will the gentlelady yield? ms. herrera beutler: absolutely. mrs. roby: it's so important to

the gentlelady not to wait that she's spending her birthday night here on the floor of the house. so happy birthday. mr. gardner: thank you for the points you raised. i had the opportunity at a hearing committee several months ago to discuss with the assistant administrator of the e.p.a., mathew stanislaus, we were asking a simple question, does the environmental protection agency take into account job, the impact on jobs when they do an economic analysis. and the answer was no. he didn't take into account jobs and i find it hard to believe that anybody could actually have an adequate analysis of a rule or regulation's impact on the economy if they're not taking a look at jobs and what it meaners in economy. ms. herrera beutler: we're not saying let's erase or eviscerate environmental protections. we want to protect the quality of life and pass it to the next

generation. we're asking for some common sense to be used, take into account when you're going through the matrix of these regulations what the impact is on the economy. it's a very reasonable, very commonsense way to approach it. >> i thank the gentleman from colorado. you know what's amazing about those forgotten 15? you know how much they cost? nothing. i mean, isn't that great? you think about it, we're talking about something out of washington that doesn't cost anything, it's actually going to do something. i mean, how often does that happen? if you look a couple of years prior or i guess a year ago four years prior everything that came out of here cost a lot of money. the president's own stimulus bill, as was mentioned earlier, when they said unemployment will never go above 8% if we pass it in fact has never gone below 8% since it was passed and that

cost almost $1 trillion added onto our debt and i remember once i was doing an interview and there was a fellow congresswoman from the other side that was a democrat that said, well, you know the problem with the first stimulus is it wasn't large enough, that's why it didn't work. it wasn't large enough. mr. kinzinger: i disagree but for a moment of time let's say that's accurate. let's say it wasn't large enough. so why would you do a stimulus that's half as large as the original one? truthfully, to be honest with you guys, i think that the president has no intention of his jobs plan, his stimulus 2 passed in the house of representatives and i think if we voted on it and passed it tomorrow, there'd be some panic in the administration because they know that's not going to be a job creation plan. they know it's just a political thing to talk about. this is a real job creation plan right here. the bills that we have over in the senate. and it's time that today we just dish mean, look, senator reid, take up the bill, vote them down if you want to vote them down, but give the american people a

voice them. can't have a voice when they sit on your desk. you don't have a voice when they sit on your desk. we don't need another $450 billion added onto our debt. what we need is to pass these bills and this plan. so with that i just want to say thank you and i yield. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from illinois. i know my neighbor in colorado has done tremendous work on getting this country back economically and what he's doing to create jobs and i yield to the gentleman from kansas. >> i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for yielding your time and i was listening to the comments from the gentleman from illinois, discussing the unemployment rate being over 8%. now for some time. in fact, it's been over 8% for 32 months which is the longest period of unemployment this high since the great depression. the things we're doing in washington, d.c., frankly haven't been working. and so it's time to start pushing the types of bills that the house has been pushing this year, to try to get this economy back on track. and i'm happy to join my colleagues tonight and i'm also happy to be a strong supporter of the forgotten 15 and the new

seven bill, dozens of bills are passing the house throughout this session that will help the economy recover, help small businesses create jobs. now, americans are frustrated with what they see going on in congress, what they see going on in washington, d.c. and there's a reason. because they see the policies that have failed in this town over the past few years and they don't believe that washington can function and they can do things to help the economy recover. mr. yoder: that's because we've been doing all the wrong things. whether it was the bailout, stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, the health care takeover, cap and trade, card check, you couldn't think of a moranity business set of legislation that this congress passed over the last few years than those bills. and what they did is they've held down the recovery and they've stopped small business owners, they stop entrepreneurs from growing anding jobs. frankly we know that jobs are not going to be created in washington, d.c. they're going to be created back home in places like illinois and in colorado and in kansas and in alabama and, yes, even wisconsin. all across the country.

but innovators and job creators and entrepreneurs, the people that built this country and that create the jobs are not going to come from big washington programs and that's what has caused the problems in this country. these big washington bailouts. run up national debt, all of it has not worked. it's time we change course, it's time we start pushing legislation that will promote small businesses, that will promote the free enterprise systems. and frankly these things are common sense. the american people, they want congress to pass commonsense legislation. >> will the gentleman suspend? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate passed s. 1487 cited as the asian-pacific economic corporation business travel cards act of 2011. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. yoder: the point about these commonsense bills that the house

is pushing, these pro-business, pro-job creating bills that the house has been pushing and sending over to the senate is they focus on the very things that built this country in the first place. this nation was not built because we had a huge distribute highest tax rates in the world, because we had more regulations than any country in the worlder because we had -- world, because we had natural debt in the trillions. that's not what built this country. it was the hard work and determination, the sweat equity of the american people who had no guarantees, who built this country brick by brick. and the commonsense things that congress doesn't do, that they've done -- that they've been doing -- going the wrong way for years, look, tax increases. tax increases don't create jobs. borrowing and spending doesn't create wealth. doesn't create jobs. regulations don't create jobs. and so every day in washington we're putting more barriers in the way of these small business owners that we want to have create jobs and it's making things worse. in fact, just looking at the regulations that are coming out every week out of washington, it's unbelievable. this is just a stack of the

regulations that have come out just this week in washington, d.c. monday, new set of regulations. tuesday, new set of regulations. wednesday, new set of regulations. that one's pretty thick there. thursday, another set of regulations. just this week these regulations. i mean, they just don't stop. it just keeps coming and coming and hitting our small business owners and stopping the economy from recovering. let me give you an example. on wednesday, what these regulations have, on wednesday alone, 188 pages of new regulations dealing with the health care takeover. is that what the economy needs? is that what you hear from your small business owners at home? is that what americans are crying out for? 188 new pages of regulations dealing with health care? it's got to stop. and, yes, to the president, we can wait on having new regulations. we can wait on the president's big tax increases. we can wait on this stuff. we don't need 188 new pages of obamacare regulations, we don't need this new stack of regulations this week. it's not helping the economy recover, it's making it more difficult and that's wyoming proud to stand with my colleagues today on the house

floor and fight for the american people and fight for the prosperity of this country, the way -- that we all believe in and we know we can restore it but we have to stop doing things in washington that makes it harder to recover. >> you're talking about -- what you're holding in your hand, that is this week. mr. gardner: that's just one week, one day of regulations? >> these are the regulations that have come out since monday, monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, the regulations. these didn't create jobs. these made it harder on the economy. mr. yoder: every day. in fact, i think there's been over 65,000 new pages of regulations coming out of washington, d.c., and frankly the gentleman from colorado, people at home, they hear us talk about the regulations but they may not always see and understand what washington's actually doing. this is what we're doing to the job creators. this is what we're doing to the entrepreneurs in this country. we are strangling them and we're -- these regulations are making what was once the most prosperous nation in the world, that was a beacon of hope from around the world, that we all still believe in, trying to strangle that and we have to stop it.

guard gart i thank the gentleman from -- mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from kansas and one of the things i hear at town meetings, the issue of uncertainty in our economy and shoot that regulations are forcing businesses to make decisions, not to hire new people, but to actually either stay and prevent from growing or to reduce in size. so with that i would yield to the gentleman from illinois. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i am still just thinking about the regulations from this week and the week's not over. we still got another day of regulations that are going to be coming out. mr. dold: and we hear time an again from -- and again from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it's been 10 months and still no jobs bill. we hear it time and again when the one-minute speeches and we open up session, the other side says, still no jobs bill. i beg to differ. we've got jobs bills. we talk about the forgotten 15, we've got several more. we passed some tonight. part of our plan is to empower the private sector.

part of our plan is to make sure that we're eliminating some of the uncertainty that's out there. and let me just tell you, the week of regulations, just one week of regulations that are out here that literally shakes the desk when you drop it is certainly not creating more certainty. now the one thing that i am pleased to say is that i believe that we were sent here to be able to work with those on the other side of the aisle, to move our country forward. i am pleased to say that we passed bills today talking about access to capital for job creators like many of us here have come in from the private sector, broad bipartisan support. the president of the united states came and spoke before the chamber here in a joint session talking about a jobs plan. as opposed to saying, no, i don't want it, what i intend and tried to talk to others about and i know many agree is what are the areas that we agree on? talk about free trade or the trade agreements. we agree.

we passed those. it's going to talk about 250,000 american jobs. increasing our bottom line in terms of our g.d.p. by $10 billion this year alone with south korea as the only one. we had colombia and panama and that number obviously rises. president talks about the burdensome regulations. we agree. we need to make sure we have regulations, as the gentlelady from washington noted. we want them to be smart regulations. not just more of them. i mean, my goodness, how much does it cost us to even print these? the long and the short of it is we need to create an environment, we need to create an environment for the private sector out there with broad bipartisan support and i believe that if we ask those on the other side of the aisle, what's the biggest issue facing our country today, it's jobs and the economy. we just have a different view of who should be creating those jobs. i believe it should be the private sector. i believe the private sector, entrepreneurship, the united states of america has been and continues to be the grealtest

force for hope -- greatest force for hope the world has ever known. we have 29 million small businesses in our nation. if we can create an environment where half of them can create a single job, think about where we'd be then. let's just take a look at this. these are some bold points and i think, you know, if i asked the gentleman from illinois to talk to me about empowering small businesses and reducing government barriers to job creation, i guarantee you he can give me a couple of things that we're doing right now here in this congress. ify talked to the gentleman from colorado about fixing the tax code to help job creators, i know that he'd come up with some things because we've already done it. we passed a budget. we're 918 days in the united states senate. 918 days and still no budget. yet the law requires the congress to come up with a budget every april 15. and yet that responsibility by -- by the way it's against the law -- has been shirked by the united states senate. we're going to hear more about this do-nothing congress and i want to make sure that the

american public knows that we are here passing what we believe is commonsense legislation in a bipartisan fashion to move the country forward. we realize that unless things pass the united states senate and go to the president's desk for signature we're not going to be able to move the needle. the american public is frustrated. we're frustrated too. because i believe that the american dream is at stake. the american compact that we all came to congress to deal with, that we leave the country better for the next generation than we received from our parents and grandparents, i believe is in jeopardy today. that to me is completely unacceptable. >> i would just like to say, i had asked for the totals, i didn't have them written down, but you take the kind of bipartisan support that you're talking about that we received on the two bills that we passed just today, the access to capital and the access for entrepreneurs. mrs. roby: you take that kind of bipartisan support, the american people are frustrated because the president is calling in the

republican congress. this is a bicameral congress and whereas we hold the majority in this house, we don't in the senate. but you saw the actions that took place on the floor tonight. the first one passed 407-17. the second bill passed 413-11. there is a way to find common ground without compromising principle and that is what we are doing, because the american people are hurting and we've got to create that environment and we have by passing these bills and we are calling on those in the senate to see our bipartisanship in this house, to get americans back to work. >> i thank the gentlewoman for commenting on that. there's no doubt. look, bipartisanship can be done. the american public is frustrated because they don't think that we're working and in some instances, you know, we know that washington can be broken. mr. dold: we want to work together because we know we've got to move the ball down the

field. we know we've got to get people back to work. we've got a 9.1% unemployment. what's it in wisconsin? >> about 9%. mr. dold: in illinois it's at 10%. in certain areas in illinois we have areas of 20% to 22%. i can tell that you jobs right now absolutely number one priority. and that's why i'm willing to work with anybody here in washington that's willing to listen, that's willing to reach across the aisle, to come up with solutions and i want to let you know, people are saying we don't have a plan, we've got a plan. jobs.gop.com. i welcome everybody to be able to go get it and i yield back. mr. gardner: i want to thank the gentleman from illinois for his comments. he talked about his great hope and optimism for this country and the fact that we really do live in the greatest nation on the face of this earth. but we face tremendous challenges. the unemployment that you listed, that you spoke about for your state, the unemployment in wisconsin, the unemployment levels in colorado and across this country are significant. 14 million people are out of

work and if you start looking at the people who are underemployed or who have simply given up looking for work, that number increases a little more and want to share with you something that i think is very difficult for all of us to realize is happening and that's the fact that there's more fear about our future than at many other times in our history. according to a newspaper recent account, a resounding 69% of respond ants said the country is in decline. yet we know this country is better, we know this country is great, we know the bills we passed, the leadership we provided will restore this country and get this country working again. i have worked with my colleague from colorado for many years in the state legislature, he's a small businessman, somebody who know house to sign a check to employees to work -- to employees, to work under regulations, he stood up for

jobs in the state legislature, doing the same here. i yield to my colleague from western colorado. >> we talk about unemployment in this country, over 8%, 9.1% nationally. let me tell you the story in my district in colorado, two largest communities 10,.7 pk unemployment in pueblo, colorado. 10.5% in grand junction, colorado. i have 29 counties in colorado, we have one county with higher than 17% unemployment. mr. tipton: there's a lot of discussion on this floor in washington, d.c., about jobs and the economy, and it's well placed. we talked about businesses, but what we often forget to remember, these businesses are made up of moms and dads,

grandparents, people with hopes, with dreams, for a better future. these are the employers, the people who make america work. working together in business. let me tell you a story, about a man named jim in pueblo, colorado, just about a month ago, jim, who is a contractor, was faced with a real dilemma. a few years ago, he qualified under the president's definition as wealthy a small contractor, that wealth he reinvested back into his business to try and grow it to try and create more jobs in this country. jim made that investment, he paid down his line of credit to zero. when he went to the bank to be able to re-up that line of

credit, to be able to keep that business going, to keep his 24 core employees at work, he discovered that the because of regulations, because of dodd-frank, that he couldn't get that line of credit re-upped once again. as a result, mr. bartmas lined up his equipment, auctioned it off and when you talk to a grizzled contractor and you hear his voice crack as he had to describe how he laid off 24 people we call employees, he called family, you know this hits america as home. as i travel throughout my district, as i know my colleagues travel throughout the rest of the country, we hear the same lament from small business. from the number one job creators in this country, they're overregulated. they're worried about that pile

of regulations that we see dropped upon the desk on a weekly basis. being able to have access to capital. what is that tax rate going to actually be? what is the president's health care plan actually going to cost. -- cost? those are the questions they raise and why they're afraid to invest. if we will unleash american entrepreneurialism once again, if we will create that certainty for americans to do what we do better than any people on the face of the earth, that's to create, innovate, to build. we can fete this american economy move -- we can get this american economy moving. my colleague from colorado and i discussed often times, there's something rr unique about being an american. the very blood that courses through our veins is infused with something that people around the world can't

understand. we don't look for government to be the answer, we don't look for a government program, we want the freedom and the ability to be able to pill our own future. government should not be a stumbling block to that success but a steppingstone in this case it means the government get out of american business' way, the american employees' way an let us do what we do best, get america back to work. i yield back. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from colorado you mentioned the issue of regulations, what it's doing to business, they wanted to create a different model for a pharmacy they wanted to put the pharmacist in front of the counter so they could -- so customers could talk to the pharmacist. they had to change a regulation

to allow the pharmacist to sit in front of the counter instead of behind it. i yield to the gentleman. >> i commend my colleagues for the focus you have all had on jobs and job keyation and legislation that's actually going to help move our economy forward. i think we're in a unique time in american history. if you look at where we're at and the level of competition that we are under from countries like china, india, mexico, vietnam, brazil, this is a whole new environment that we haven't seen before. it's not 1950's, not 1980's, not even the 1990's. this is a different form of competition. and if we're going to be successful in this new environment, we have to do it right. pause if we get it wrong, you see massive unemployment. as we came into this recession, i think the american people said to the president, we are willing to go along with you, mr. president if you tell us we can spend $1 trillion and from

that you can take the pain away, you can create jobs with that kind of spending if you tell us we can pass a health care bill an that's going to help create jobs, we can pass more regular laces an that's going to create jobs, ok, mr. president, we'll go along with you because the pain is too great. mr. duffy: when one of my family members is out of work and i see the pain and suffering in the pamly, it's worth it, mr. president, i'll go with you. this is a path we haven't traditionally gone down, we're a economy, a society of free marks and free enterprise. we look to the individual who invests, works hard, innovates, and creates wealth, creates opportunity, creates jobs in their community. but we're willing to go for a while and say, let's try it out, mr. president. a couple of years down the road, we look back and say, where are we? are we better off today than we were two and a half or three

years ago? i think if you ask the american people, they will give you a resounding no, we're not. and so what we're doing here today is saying, let's go back to our great history. let's go back to our roots. of free markets. let's try to streamline the regulatory process that this government has given the private sector. let's make sure we free the american people, we free the entrepreneurial spirit and if we do that, and we engage in this new competitive environment against china, india, mexico, i don't care who it is, if you set the american free, we will compete, we will win, we will thrive, we will grow and we will prosper. that's why we in this house have passed bills with bipartisan support that advocate for prix markets and listen, some people come at us and say, you don't want regulation. that's not true. we want smart regulations. listen they are tax code needs

to be reformed. we say, yes, absolutely it needs to be reformed we feel want to make sure there aren't loopholes that don't make big corporations and big industry and the wealthy not pay their fair share. we're the first ones, we're the first ones in washington to say, let's fix the loophole, let's root it out. it's only after we did it that we saw the president come out and follow it. i will tell him i'm a willing partner in tax reform. i think as we look at what's happened here, we sent, i think one of the members said, we sent over 22 bills to the senate and with that, the senate hasn't taken up any of them. as the gentleman from illinois noted, at least the senate should take them up an give them a vote. if they want to vote them down, that's ok. but at least take them up and give them a vote. they took the president's bill up and gave it a vote, in a bipartisan effort, it failed.

my point to my colleagues and the american people is that if we were going to move our economy forward, we have to tap in to the principles and ideals that made this country great. that's what this freshman class is talking about tonight, that's what we've been talking about for the last 10 months. i look forward to the work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. you might notice i'm on the left side here, i'm on the democrat side they have aisle, i'm willing to work with my friends on both sides. let's get it done, let's not do it for party, let's do it for the american people, putting them back to work. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i would be curious to hear from my colleagues tonight, i have never heard someone say, when is the government to create jobs to replace the 15 million unemployed, i don't know if you're hearing the same thing? mrs. roby: i get asked the question, what is the most shocking thing in your experience in washington and i

unequivocally can say the most shocking part of this experience of representing alabama's second district is really beginning to understand how huge this government is. how the federal government right now today trickles down into every ve vis of our lives. to go with the gentleman from wisconsin's remarks, we are trying to get government out of the way and allow the private sector to thrive. we don't have people coming up to us at our town hall saying, when are you going to pass more regulations? mr. gardner: i'm sure the gentleman from illinois is hearing the same thing. >> we, not we, we've only been here less than a year but the american people have been so conditioned to believe that if there's any difficulty, the answer is a giant government expenditure package a giant bill with a lot of money spent. we've been conditioned to believe that. if the economy is bad obviously it's because the government is

not spending enough. that's not true. the reality is we built this country, this is what i hear from people, we built this country based on people just having an idea and going out and getting it done. that's what we're talking about, that idea. >> and the sta -- mr. gardner: and the statistics speak for themselves. the number of jobs shed since the stimulus was passed. ms. herrera beutler: we understand that the federal government has responsibilities, securitying our nation's infrastuckture, we're not against those things we just think hay need to be done in a smart an efficient fashion. when you look at the last time -- the stimulus. giant amounts of money were spent before this most recent round of stimulus spending under the economy o because ma economy. the last time we got things out of it like the hoover dam. we got something for it. out of the stimulus spending, which was sold primarily as a jobs bill because it was going

to create transportation infrastructure, less than 7% of that $800 billion stimulus bill went to transportation infrastuckture. -- infrastructure. so it's not that republicans don't support that those things take place, we're here to require accountability. we're not going to throw money at it and hope it works, we recognize something is wrong here in washington. we have passed well over 15 bills to get things going to fix the thing that's broken. we just need help from the folks on the other side of the aisle. mrs. roby: i think the american people ought to begging the question to the senate as it relates to the tardy 22 bills that they have sitting there on their side, they need to ask them, specifically, their senators, why are you opposed to this? what is your sound objective, what is your reasoning? we want to create jobs, we're