we are wrapping up here. so closing comments from you on what we've learned from all of this. guest: well, actually, i do want to respond to that tweet because one of the things that's happening in this debate is that border security has been very tightly linked to immigration reform with republicans saying until our borders are 100% not going to talk about immigration reform. that's a very loose term. we used to have 6,000 border patrol agents. we have 30,000 now so that's going to be part of the ongoing debate, what defines border security, when are we ready to talk about immigration overhaul. host: very quickly, this last chart. guest: this last chart shows a portion of the children under 18 with at least one foreign-born parent. don't focus so much on the numbers. focus on the light blue segment of the chart. about 20% have at least one foreign-born parent. that point we will close. a statistical look at the foreign-born population in the states.

have a great weekend. thanks for being with us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] understanding, their wills with courage to do the right thing for all of america. as it is so often easy for all of us to focus on what separates one from another, may our understanding that you have created us as one people remind us of the values that bind us altogether as americans in the human family. may that reminder empower the members of this house to act courageously in the work they have to do for all americans. 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 today will be led by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee: please join me in the pledge to our flag. 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: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches from each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? mr. nunnelee: to address the house, mr. speaker. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. mississippi experienced a great loss this week with the death of governor bill waller. he served as our governor from 1972 to 1976, and he provided steady leadership during tumultuous times in our state. he believed that mississippi should be a place of liberty and justice for all.

under his leadership, we had the largest pay raise for teachers in our state's history up to that point, the most significant investment in infrastructure and roadways up until that point and leaving the state with the largest surplus. mississippi is a better place because of governor waller's leadership, and this week we mourn his passing. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pingree: mr. speaker, this week i voted against h.r. 3094, the so-called workplace, democracy and fairness act. or as it has become known, the election prevention act. this bill's sole purpose is to delay and prevent workers for voting in workplace elections. it proposes a 35-day mandatory waiting period before an election -- a union election can be held.

it encourages frivolous suits to be filed against union formation and it allows companies to hand pick union voters. in maine we have a tradition of incredibly hardworking people who are essential to the health, education and safety of our families. collective bargaining has been at the heart of american labor since the rise of trade unions during the 19th century. thanks to strong unions and hard workers, over the years we have child labor laws, maternity leave and we don't need to fear unemployment if we get sick. i am proud to stand here today with organized labor and the nlrb which has served our workers so well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i recently received this email from john of houston giving -- as one of the 9.2 million people whose livelihood is supported by the oil and

natural gas industry, i am troubled by the recent calls to raise the money. as washington focuses on improving our struggling economy, congress has an opportunity to take our economy in a new direction, one that leads to economic growth and economic security. by promoting policies that encourage domestic oil and natural gas production, we can create 1.4 million jobs and generate $800 billion in additional government revenue by 2013. mr. speaker, john, a person that works for a living, understands better than washington elites that our god-given natural resources should be used to create jobs for americans. time to stop sending american jobs to middle eastern countries to buy their natural resources and start supporting american energy workers and american businesses, and that's

just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, by extending and expanding the payroll tax cuts -- excuse me, i'm asking the house to pass the expansion of the payroll tax cuts which will put more money in the pockets of americans and boost economic growth and job creation. american workers have received bigger paychecks in 2011 because of the payroll tax cut, helping families to pay their grocery bills, pay their rent, mortgages and supporting local businesses. allowing the payroll tax cuts to expire at the end of this month will result in less money in the pockets of hardworking middle-class families at a time when our economy and our families can least afford it. with global financial uncertainty threatening our domestic recovery, this is not the time to take money out of the pockets of working families. a family earning $50,000 a year will receive a tax cut of about $1,000 if the 2% payroll tax

cut will be extended. for rhode island it will add $400 million to the paychecks of roughly 6,000 workers. expanding it to 3.is%, as the president proposed, could would be about $700 million for rhode island. it's time to stand up for american working families by extending the payroll tax cut now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: i was at fort levinworth to honor the new commanding general of fort levinworth. it was fitting that general perkins, a west point grad, distinguished iraq war commander and declarated career serviceman, took his post

during military family appreciation month as his two children, chad and cassandra, both serve in the army. there is no doubt that general perkins, his wife ginger, and their two wonderful children exemplify what it means to be a military family. i want to extend a warm welcome to general perkins and my deepest thanks to departing general who has left fort leavenworth for his new port as the chief in iraq. thank for your dedication to the fort leavenworth community and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the census bureau recently reported that 100 million americans in or on the brink of poverty. maybe now tea party is hearing georgia and congress will realize what millions of people already know and that is

americans are barely getting by and the misguided republican agenda of deregulation, higher taxes for the middle class and tax cuts for the rich would do nothing for those who are struggling. we should extend the payroll tax cut, toss a lifeline to struggling americans who can barely make ends meet and stop holding small businesses and american families hostage with the threat of higher taxes. i hope my tea party colleagues will take the moment to put the interest of the majority of americans over those of overpaid bankers and oil executives. we must extend the payroll tax cut and help renew opportunity and restore the american dream to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. despite the supercommittee's inability to come to a bipartisan agreement recently,

we cannot stand idly by and hope that someone will fix the problem. rather, we must come together to find common ground today. mr. dold: in the president's address before this body just a short time ago, he called for the removal of burdensome regulations on small businesses. i certainly hope that that's something that both republicans and democrats can agree upon. as a small business owner, i know that the economic uncertainty facing job creators today is largely based upon the threat of thousands of pages of new regulations that are coming out day after day. what we need to do is implement smart regulations and repeal tuesday plick tif and burdensome regular -- duplicative and burdensome regulations. we need a clean you are, healthier environment. so let's come together and implement smart regulations and get rid of red tape and excessive regulations that are keeping our entrepreneurs from

growing and expanding their business and hiring new workers. let's get america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i agree, let's do something meaningful to put america back to work. let's put millions to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. the spreerk promised us we would do this month, the republicans would bring a surface transportation bill to the house. we can't find a way to pay for it. now, with millions unemployed, the republicans want to jerk their lifeline. they want to kill off extended unemployment benefits to do what, preserve tax cuts for the rich, the job creators. well, they're doing a heck of a job creating jobs, aren't they? this is the discredited theory of trickled down economics. guess what, america's unemployed is being trickled on and it stinks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, this president simply does not understand america's energy needs. mr. boustany: two weeks ago this administration trumped policy by delaying the canadian keystone x.l. pipeline. this is inexcusable. it would carry millions of barrels of oil per day, create 20,000 american jobs and inject millions of dollars into local economies. instead, the canadian prime minister announced canada will sell its oil to china. mr. speaker, i have proudly supported numerous bills that will create american jobs and promote american energy production. putting the guffleguffle back to work act, reversing president obama's offshore moratorium act. these bills will all promote

american energy production and american jobs and yet they're sitting in the senate without action. let's pass these bills. let's get them to the senate. mr. speaker, sign these bills and promote american energy production, american energy security and american jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, we've entered the 1th month of the republican majority in this house and there's any indication that december will be a continuation of the g.o.p. no jobs agenda. mr. deutch: my colleagues in the majority have shown no interest in tackling america's real economic challenges, no interest in the fact that small business owners say that weak sales, not government regulation, are the main source of their struggle. no interest in the fact that it is tax relief for middle-class families. not tax giveaways to corporations and to billionaires that our economy

needs to boost consumer demand. and no interest in preventing the expiration of unemployment benefits for millions of struggling families and the havoc it would wreak on our economy. mr. speaker, the majority's interest is on one thing, an election still nearly a year a away. americans want us to work for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3010. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 477 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for

consideration of h.r. 3010. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3010 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reform the process by which federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, employers across america face a avalanche of unnecessary federal regulatory cost. federal regulation costs our economy $1.7 trillion every year. over $15,000 for each household,

according to the small business administration. yet the obama administration seeks to add billions more to that cost. the administration's record-setting issuance of major regulations is particularly troubling. by its own admission, the administration's 2011 regulatory agenda contains 200 regulation that is typically will affect the economy by $100 million or more every year. for employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, the impact of these costly regulations is clear. government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. faced with huge new regulatory burdens and unsert certainties about what will -- uncertainties about what will come next, employers slow down hiring, stop investing, and wait for a bill from the obama administration. what enables the administration

to issue so many new regulations with so little regard for their cost is the outdated administrative procedure act. enacted in 1946, the a.p.a.'s minimal limitations on rule making have hardly changed in decades and do nothing to control cost. the regulatory accountability act fixes this problem by bringing the a.p.a. up to date. under its commonsense provisions, agencies are required to assess the cost and benefits of regulatory alternatives unless interest of public health, safety, or welfare require otherwise, agencies must adopt the least costly alternative that achieves the regulatory objectives congress has established. the regulatory accountability act has bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. including from a number of house democrats who have co-sponsored the bill. in large part this is because

its provisions are modeled on the executive orders that presidents reagan, clinton, bush, and obama have issued to compensate for the a.p.a.'s weaknesses. opponents of the act claim that it requires the benefits of all new regulations to exceed their cost. they argue that as a result the act will prevent federal agencies from issuing new important public health, safety regulations. this is false. the regulatory accountability act only requires agencies to adopt the lowest cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's statutory objectives. this assures that agencies will achieve all of those objectives but with much lower cost. opponents also assert that the act's new procedural requirements will halt all federal rule making, but the act primarily codifies existing executive order principles and practices under which agencies have been able to issue regulations for years.

the act's few additional requirements all are streamlined. they will improve the quality and lower the cost of regulations, but they will not unduly delay them. the act increases the transparency of the rule making process with more advance notices of proposed rule making, more opportunities for public comment, and more opportunities for public hearings. this will lessen the influence of all special interest. the regulatory accountability act provides the greatest opportunity yet for republicans and democrats to join together and lure the job-killing -- lower the job-killing cost of regulations. it allows costs to be lowered while it assures all congress' objectives are obtained. the bill also provides a clear opportunity for the votes of democrats in congress to match president obama's words on regulatory reform. in his state of the union

address, the president said that, quote, to reduce barriers to growth and investment, when we find rules that put unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them, end quote. in executive order 13563, the president said, quote, our regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. must allow for public participation and open exchange of ideas, must identify and use the best most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends, and must take into account benefits and cost, end quote. the president was right. the regulatory accountability act does just all those things. i urge all my colleagues to support the regulatory accountability act and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is required. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i want to begin our

discussion this morning about with the reference that the federal regulations impose an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on business. i would like the members to know that the reference made to this study is the crane study. i'd like to use the name so that you can track exactly what is being said about it. the study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool. who says this? they said it. as a preface to the study itself. and for the benefit of the 433 other members besides myself and

the chairman, i am going to put this in the record and also make it available to all of our colleagues on the judiciary committee. the crane study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool, and the congressional research service, our own criticized much of the crane study's methodology and noted that the authors of the crane study themselves told the congressional research service that their analysis was not to be a decisionmaking tool for lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right level of regulation. so every time somebody mentions

this study again on the floor, i am going to rer if -- refer them to the congressional research study which has never been disputed or declaimed by anybody. no claims in any of the reports do we imply our reports should be used for this purpose. that's the crane study people themselves. that's not the congressional research study. that's the authors. and here is the congressional research study that i will ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record at this time. the chair: the request is covered under general leave.

the center for progressive reform is another study that notes that the $1.75 trillion cumulative burden cited by the study fails to account for any benefits of the regulation. i am going to at the appropriate time introduce that into the record. the congressional research service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs. so i would urge the members to be aware of what i am going to do during this debate the next time somebody names the study without naming the name of the study. and the fact that it was put together by mark and nicole

crane, commonly called the crane study. the study -- the congressional research service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic cost. the study relied on international public opinion polling by the world bank on how friendly a particular country was to business interests. ignored actual data on costs imposed by the federal regular lation in the united states. the congressional reference service concluded that a valid reasoned policy decision can only be made after considering information on both cost and benefits of regulation. now, the next thing i would like

to do is examine what seems to be a political or legislative strategy that is being used in this debate. you see, there are three bills that are anti-regulatory bills and there's no question or dispute about that, designed to slow or halt rule making and give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rule making process of the federal government. h.r. 3010, which we are taking up today, is one of them. h.r. 527 which we took up yesterday is another one of them.

h.r. 10, the king of all regulatory -- anti-regulatory bills, is coming up next week. the rains act, which for the first time in american history determines that the congress must also approve the rules of all the agencies over which there are some 40 or 50. for the benefit of every member of the congress, i am getting together every agency that would now be involved and would have to have their rules, believe it or not this is not saturday night live -- "saturday night live" would come through the congress. can you imagine what that would do to our schedule?

so these bills are blatantly and unhesitatingly designedle to slow down and even halt all federal rule making. thereby threatening public health and safety by undermining the agency's ability to address a whole range of issues. what about food-borne illnesses? what about toy safety? what about infant formula safety? what about financial security? all three anti-regulatory bills also give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rule making process. the bill under consideration

now, for example, requires formal rule making and expands opportunities to challenge agency action in court. as if they need any help from the corporate lawyers that are all lined up to do their work at the present moment. but, no, we want to give them more opportunities to go in court, as if they can't figure it out for themselves. h.r. 527 of the previous day does this by expanding the use of small business review panels. the measure coming up next week would require congress to approve all major rules, not only do we have to do that, but we have to do it within 70 legislative days. before they could take effect.

effectively, of course, allowing industry to intervene in congress to stop a rule. so, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: before i yield to the gentleman from north carolina i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: mr. chairman, here is another poll that i'm going to cite that will support what this administration's only small business administration has found about the cost of these regulations. . the article is dated just a few weeks ago. here's the headline on the article. "government regulations at top of small business owners' problem list. one in three small business owners are worried about going out of business." the article was written by jacoby. this is the first line in the

finding of the gallup poll. small business owners in the united states are most likely to say complying with regulations, 22%, is the most important problem facing them today. followed by consumer confidence and the economy, 15%, and lack of consumer demand, 12%. mr. chairman, arguably, the administration is responsible for every one of these problems because of the administration's policies. mr. chairman, i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, who is the chairman of the courts, commercial and administrative law subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. coble: mr. chairman -- i thank the chairman from texas, mr. smith. i thank you for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3010. i reiterate what i said yesterday regarding regulatory legislation that when critics accuse those of us who support it, furthermore accuses us being willing to compromise health and safety standards, not guilty.

but we are guilty of trying to reduce the number of redundant excessive regulations, bad, onerous regulations. that to that i plead guilty. as i meet from representatives in industries from my congressional district and other district in washington, one thing is clear, our regulatory process is out of control. there is enormous uncertainty of what actions agencies will take. there is unserpt which -- uncertainty. they highlight a growing perception how a government is simply out of touch. prot is he is checks and balances which is the cornerstone of our democracy. while regulators have virtually limitless resources and power. it has the interest to pose their will on certain areas of

the regulatory system after clearing few hooks and lower hurdles. this was not the intent of the administrative procedures act and a list of executive orders requiring agencies issue narrowly tailors, less costly alternatives that began watt reagan administration. other costs continue to hit close to home, mr. chairman. they drive businesses to other countries, costing thousands of jobs. many will argue that regulations create jobs. that may well be true of good, sound regulations, but ask many of the employers who have relocated their manufacturing facilities and they will tell you it's in large part due to our regulatory government. every industry in america is concerned about our regulatory regime and there is little doubt that bad regulations have driven american jobs to other cubs. the solution is not more regulation, mr. chairman. it's better and more effective

regulation which is exactly what h.r. 3010 is intended to create. much like h.r. 527, the small business regulatory reform bill that we approved yesterday. when the administrative procedure act was implemented, few imagined that our government would issue a regulation that would threaten the viability of an entire industry. today, unfortunately, many would say this has become the routine practice. prime example is the e.p.a. mact noise, h.h.s.'s grandfather plan rule. some say they're misguided and others would say they're downright reckless. h.r. 3010 addresses the situation by implementing new requirements that will give stake holders a legitimate opportunity to improve regulations as they are proposed, promulgated and ultimately implemented. in fact, most of the reforms included in this legislation

codified by president obama's executive order, improving regulatory review. finally, the bill will not change any existing regulatory standard or requirement. the overwhelming view from my congressional district is that federal regulations are driving america's ingenuity and opportunity to other countries. improving our regulatory process may be one of the most significant legislative contributions that we can provide to help preserve our safety and provide economic opportunity for future generations. mr. chairman, we continue to hear jobs, jobs, jobs echoed from shore to shore, border to border. this is a good piece of legislation, and i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize steve cohen of tennessee, the ranking member

of the subcommittee on courts, commerce and administrative law, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank the ranking member for the time. i have a nice speech that was written by a fantastic staffer that i'm not going to use today because i've used it in the past and most of the speevens have been used or parts of them on the other bills we have. as the wonderful gentleman on the opposite side, mr. smith and mr. coble are two great wonderful people that i think dearly of but they have different philosophies, different perspectives. these bills are basically anti-government bills. this is what this congress has been about, anti-government and defeating the president of the united states. and these bills which we got would destroy the administrative procedure act

and destroy the whole process of government that we've known for decades. the fact is president bush had as many, if not more, rules than president obama. but we didn't hear from the other side anything about the nefarious rules making process, the need for reform, the jobs that could be created by eliminating the rulemaking authority or stifling it, changing it until president obama became the president. and we heard this morning from the other side in the administration that's -- it's the administration that's at fault because all the rules they produced. and now they are saying the administration is at fault because of the rules they passed. they made less rules than president bush made. there was silence on the other side. silence. all of a sudden there is a roar. this whole week when we need jobs, when this economy needs jobs, when people need unemployment insurance, for the 99ers, the weeks they go ahead

unemployment insurance. the doctors that need the medicare fix to continue to pay doctors a reasonable rate to treat our medicare patients, we are not dealing with that. when we need to be dealing with the payroll tax cut for the middle class, we have not done that. we have spent the whole week destroying the government, anti-government. rick perry has talked about making congress halftime. how can we be halftime when we are not accomplishing jobs and creating jobs full time. as mr. conyers talked about, next week we get the mother of all anti-government bills, the raines act, which really is reining in government, a bill that would require every rule to come -- be passed by both the house and senate and signed by the president within 75 days before it goes into effect. that's star wars. it's a big dark hole out there in the universe where all rules and regulations would go and die and never be seen before. well, that's not the way government is supposed to work

or should work. if we do that how can we work halftime under president perry? we know there's not enough money for overtime. governor perry wants us to get a separate job. we go back to san antonio, work halftime as a congressman and halftime we work as wal-mart. who would love this bill? the tobacco companies. wouldn't it be great if we didn't have rules and regulations on tobacco, smoking could kill you, it could cause damage to infants that pregnant women shouldn't drink or smoke? tobacco companies would love those regulations. giving notice to people about the dangers of tobacco which europe has been doing forever and we need to put an end to because it costs us so much in medical cost and the loss of precious loves. the polluters would love this. the destroyers and the plunders of our environment would love it because, wow, we can do whatever we want. removal of mountains, drilling

in the -- more oil spills. put less regulation. an emergency that government can't respond to clean up the mess. you know, that's what they're talking about. it's all phrased in the terms of small business, small business, small business. small business is wonderful. we do a lot with small businesses. small businesses are job creators. big business is behind this, not small business. small business is the front used to help the polluters, tobacco companies and others that don't want to see regulations, that protect the american public's food, air, water, transportation and others. other areas. we've had the issue of judicial review that's come up, and in this bill we give the courts more power than they otherwise have. the other side usually talks about the importance of the judicial branch simply being equal partner, but in this position the judicial branch could review any rule and regulation and make their own determination of a cost benefit

analysis without expertise that the agencies have and there would be the judiciary that would have the final say. so they would give more power to the the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: unfortunately, we hear a lot of words that are irrelevant to the bill we are considering here today. once again let me repeat that the regulatory accountability act only requires agencies to adopt the least cost regulatory alternative that achieved the agency's statutory objectives. it therefore assures that in all instances agencies will achieve

those objectives whether to protect public health, safety, or welfare or to satisfy some other statutory purpose. . the key contribution is once agencies identify means to achieve their statutory objectives, they have the means that impose the lowest costs. i don't know how anyone could object to that. this creates a positive cycle in which agencies and regulated entities compete to identify innovative, least cost means to achieve statutory objectives while they smumently produce the most -- summitly produce the most benefits -- simultaneously produce the most benefits. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the ranking member currently, george miller of california, i yield him as much time as it may consume. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. and, mr. speaker, this is a very sad day for america's workers. this country has spent great time and effort, along with the industrial base and the business base in this country to ensure when workers go to work every day they will return safely to their home. this legislation begins to bring that to an end because it would needlessly and recklessly expose our workers to injuries. it would obstruct the federal agencies to adequately respond to real safety and health concerns of our nation's workplace. under the current law, both the occupational safety and health administration and the mine safety health administration would be tasked to protect workers from exposure for risk and toxins over their working lifetime. however, this legislation would override that task. it would change the nature of the idea of protecting workers in the workplace to make sure we have the most effective means possible to protect those

workers. it wasn't -- it wasn't the dust standards that killed the textile industry in the southeastern part of the united states. the dust standards that were invoked in 1978 that were derailed against the textile industry in fact extended the life of the textile industry by making it more efficient, by bringing in a new generation of technology to that industry. what killed those -- what killed those textile industries were free trade agreements. they were among the most efficient mills in the world. they just couldn't stand up against the unfair competition from the chinese and their textile industry. so let's understand what's happening here. this bill would change the standard of providing the most protective standards that is feasible to providing a standard that picks the least costly approach, the least costly approach to protecting your hearing is to cover your ears. cover your ears while you're working on an airline factory, cover your ears while you're

putting bags on an airline. cover your ears. that's the least costly. eye protection, close your eyes. cover your eyes. that's the least costly. that doesn't work in the workplaces of america. and the employers know it. the employers know it. . what do you say to an ironworker working on a bridge or skyscraper. hold on tight? we saw what happened when they went to the least costly effective restraints on workers working on skyscrapers in las vegas. they were killing them. record rate of killing construction workers. but they had the least costly. they didn't think they should have to string a net three floors down to catch the workers as they fell. they chose another method. the least costly. that's the republican answer to safety in the workplace? stick your fingers in your ear? what do you do about breathing

toxins? get yourself a paper mask? when we started changing the standards, not only did it make the workplace more efficient, it protected the workers, it created a byproduct that had great commercial value, and expanded the industry by making it more efficient. what they used to waste they now sell, what they used to waste and injure workers with they now sell. that's the different. this standard -- the least costly approach? don't tell that to the united states steel in my district. i just went on a safety tour with the workers and with the management. and how they -- they told me how they changed the traffic patterns, the pedestrian patterns, vehicle codes, all of the changes inside of the steel mill because they want injury-free days, injury-free months, and injury-free years. take a tour of the chevron refinery in my district, dow chemical, dupont. safety is their number one job

daily in that facility. they take pride in it. they invest a lot of money in it because they know what an unsafe workplace, what a dirty workplace, what a crowded workplace costs them in lost time and productivity. this bill goes counterto the best practices in industry. counter to the best practices in small businesses. this just doesn't work in modern industry, this is a throwback to the 1970's or 1960's where miners used to assume they had to consume coal dust and die of black lung. for steel workers they fell into open hearth furnaces in the old mills. today you can get run over by a coal conveyance system. you can get caught up in a line, in a rolling line. but you don't because they invest in your safety. and now the american government is telling them you won't have

to invest in this safety. i think they are going to ignore that because they have been to the other side. they know what it was like to have casualties. and they know that that doesn't work. they know they can't stand, you can bankrupt the companies with black lung today. and cotton dust. we still have grain elevators blow up in this country. when i came to congress they were blowing up on a daily basis. but we have dust standards now. we save workers' lives, but we still tragically have a few accidents. you can ignore the standards on the petroleum rig. you can kill the workers because you avoided the process safety standards on that rig. in texas city in texas you can blow up the workers because you ignore the standards. and they knowingly ignored them. that was the least costly they thought of british petroleum was to ignore the standards. when they went to the boardroom

in london and they raised this issue with the board of directors, they chose the least costly approach. they chose the least costly approach. and they had one of the worst safety records in america, british petroleum, blowing up their own facilities and killing their workers. they chose the least costly approach. this legislation then imposes, if you want to do something right, it's just delay for delay sake, mr. conyers has pointed that out how you turn this over to a litigation process before you ever get around to the question of protecting your workers. this legislation makes the workplace, there are family members go to, that our neighbors go to, that our friends go to, less safe than it is today. it impedes the progress to apply new technologies, to new knowledge, to the workplace to make it safer. that's what this legislation does.

that's not what a modern corporation wants. that's not what a modern workplace should be for workers that go into it and not where they want to go to work. it's unacceptable we would have this legislation at this time in our history. this legislation is an attack on the workplaces where middle class americans go to work. these are their workplaces. these are the hot, heavy, dirty workplaces. these are the complex workplaces that pose risk to the injury and illness to the workers in our place. this causes you to fall out of the middle class. millions of americans are falling out of the middle class because the income disparate in this country and un-- disparity in this country and unfairness in this contry. there's another way, you can fall out of the middle class, it's not just a question of lower pay, you can get hurt on the job. you lose your income. you become disabled. you can't go back to your full earnings. you end up on disability program. because you were injured on the job. all you did was show up and go

to work. under this legislation you're more likely to be hurt. you can reverse the dramatic downturn in black lung as we saw in the mines where they wouldn't clean up the coal dust and killed 29 workers in the process. over thousands of warnings, but the lawyers and the litigators prevented the standards from ever coming into place. the penalties from ever being in place. they completely game the system. that's how you can fall out of the middle class. or you can die in an explosion as people did in tennessee earlier this year. as they did in georgia earlier this year because dust standards were improperly met. or as happened in connecticut where they didn't apply the safety standards to disconnecting the national gaslines. yes, you can do that and you fall right out of the middle class. you lose your spouse in a construction site, a trench caves in, a worker falls off a

skyscraper. that's how you can fall out of the middle class. and it happens, it happens to american families every day. we made a decision as a nation that we would go in a different direction. we would look out for these workers. we would provide margins of protection. we would improve the safety in the workplace. this legislation undoes that for workers all across the country. the least costly way. you know, i worked in the refineries in my district and i saw workers fall face down in the bottom of those huge oil tanks that we were cleaning out because they had no respiratory gear because it was before osha. i saw workers throw up. i worked on the tankers going out to sea and i saw workers fall a couple stories into an empty oil tanker because they weren't connected to the lines, there was no safety device.

you went up to the ladders, if the fumes got you first you fell. i saw workers that couldn't tell you what day it was when they came out of those tanks after cleaning them. i saw workers fall into vats in the canneries when i worked in the canneries. i saw workers in construction jobs get hit by moving equipment when i worked in construction jobs. this isn't speculation. this is what happens to people all across this country. every day they go to work. yet we stand here in the congress of the united states and we say we want to make sure when a member of your family goes to work that they return home safely every day. that's not what this legislation does. this legislation makes it more likely that they are not going to return home safely and they are not going to return home at all. we ought to reject this legislation and understand how far back in the past it takes us. it's against the best business practices of this nation. it's against all of the success we have had in making the

workplace safety safe for the workers and safe for the employers and safe for the profit measure. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: the afl-cio has backed up what the ranking member, mr. miller of education and labor, has said. they warn that h.r. 3010 would upend more than 40 years of labor, health, -- 15 more seconds. it would upend more than 40 years of labor, health, safety, and environmental laws and threaten new needed protections. it would cripple the regulatory process and make protecting workers and the public secondary -- 15 more seconds -- to limiting costs and impacts on business and corporations. i will put this into the record

at the appropriate time. the chair: that request has been covered under general leave. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i realize some people want to close their eyes and close their ears so they don't see or hear the facts. there is an old adage that none are so blind as those who don't want to see the wisdom of the facts. mr. chairman, despite the sound and fury that we have heard, let me repeat a fact. and the fact i want to repeat is this, that the bill always allows agencies to meet statutory objectives. if, for example, only one rule making alternative meets statutory objectives, the agency may adopt that alternative even if it's -- its costs exceed its benefits. the bill generally asks to meet the least costly alternative. if more than one meets those objectives. agencies may adopt more costly

alternatives to protect public health, safety, and welfare, including worker safety, however if the benefits of the more costly alternative justify their costs and the agency is acting to protect the interest of public, health, safety, or welfare that are within the scope of the statutory provision that is authorize the rule making. as a result many work force safety clean air act, clean water act, and other regulations on the books still could have been adopted under the bill even if they were not the least costly alternatives. the difference is agencies would have done a better job of assessing whether those regulations really were the best ones to adopt and would have had a greater incentive to look harder for the alternatives that achieved the most benefits for the fewer cost. further, the bill does not invite courts to immerse themselves in the weeds of whether agencies have satisfied every dot of how best to perform a cost benefit analysis. instead, it asks the courts to

enforce the bill's least cost standard and allows the courts to defer to agency cost benefit analyses that comply with guidelines from the office of information regulatory affairs. as the d.c. circuit most recently demonstrated in business round table vs. s.e.c., the courts know well how to enforce requirements that agencies weigh the economic impacts of regulation without immersing themselves in endless arguments over every fine point of economic analysis. so the bill will actually decrease litigation. mr. chairman, this bill is really just a litmus test for all members of the house as to not whether they want to implement regulations or not, but whether they want to do so in the least costly manner possible. again i don't see how anyone can rationally oppose the objective of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. petersen, the ranking member of the agriculture committee. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota investigate for three minutes. mr. petersen: i rise today in support of h.r. 3010, because firstly in agriculture we have been dealing with innumerable problems that have been brought by regulations that are not properly vetted and seem to be for people that have a lack of understanding of's lkt -- of exactly what's going on in agriculture. it seems like we have some of these bureaucrats that are working on these regulations that they basically set up. they claim there are lawsuits or whatever, and next thing you know they are off doing regulations that have been kind

of self-fulfilling prophecies on their part. so this legislation gives us an overhaul. for the first time in 65 years in the administrator procedures act, to make sure that we have more openness, more transparency, more accountability in these regulations. more time, more analysis, more compile ailing in how these regulations are developed and how they can -- how we can improve this so we can improve the people's confidence and the process to try to make sure that we are taking into account the costs of what these regulations are going to place. not only on the businesses but ultimately on the consumers that are affected by this. in an agriculture, we have all these things that are coming down that i think people have a lack of understanding of just exactly what the effect is going to be. a lot of these regulations are going to have the effect of

significantly increasing food costs to could be sumers -- consumers in this country, and i just think a lot of these urban folks have no idea what they are doing. the next thing you know once these regulations got in place, thinking back in congress looking for more help for snap and other programs to try to pay for the increased food cost that is was put on to them by these regular laces. so -- regulations. so the more we can open up this process, the more we can get people to understand the actual effect of these regulations, and what they are going to accomplish if they are put into place, the better the situation is going to be. so i think this is a good step in the right direction. personally i would probably go even further than what's in this bill, but it is probably what can be accomplished at this point. i'm very happy to be here today to support this effort and look forward to having a successful outcome. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from

michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself a minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: the distinguished member of agriculture wasn't here when the ranking member, mr. miller, of education and labor, was here talking about the agricultural problems and the problems that h.r. 3010 presents to us. and what i'd like to just ask the gentleman, yesterday the food and drug administration issued a recall of both grapes and tomatoes for salmonella contamination. does the gentleman -- did the gentleman have some reservation or objection to this regulation that was -- that the f.d.a. operated on, and i'll yield to him? mr. peterson: well, if the

gentleman will yield, i think it just points out that the regulations we have in place are working. you know, we have in agriculture we only have jurisdiction over meat and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. peterson: we have jurisdiction over meat and about 20% of the food safety is under the jurisdiction of the ag department. if f.d.a. was anywhere near as competent as usda is in terms of inspections we wouldn't have these problems. but frankly -- the department of agriculture should be regulating it. mr. conyers: do you think this bill should go further, then why would f.d.a. need to have 3010 be made more likely to kill regulations that control jobs and health? mr. peterson: we're talking

about a bigger issue here, but all this bill does is it gives folks a better chance to understand what actually is going on here. this whole food safety issue has been a big problem because people are off on tangents that don't have anything to do with reality. salmonella exists in all kind of products. it's going to be there. it's always going to be there no matter what you do. what -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. peterson: so you can determine the salmonella before it gets in the food supply. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, first, i want to thank mr. peterson for his comments and i also want to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. costa, also a member of the ag committee, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. costa: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r.

3010, the regulatory accountability act of 2011. as co-sponsor of this legislation, i understand that this is not -- this is not about eliminating existing regulations, but it's about making sure that regulations do not eliminate the ability of businesses to thrive to create jobs in places like the san joaquin valley, the place i represent, especially during these difficult economic times. many regulations can cost upwards of $100 million to the industries affected by the rule. but they also impact consumer costs as well. while business people in my district are carefully watching their bottom line, ill-advised regulations can hamper the ability to create jobs and get our economy going. so this legislation is also about jobs. this legislation ensures that regulations are fully vetted before they are put in place. despite the best intentions, we

often see bureaucrats proposing rules without any practical knowledge of how they will work in the real world. h.r. 3010 guarantees that the business communities, farmers in my district, can know when regulations are being proposed, that they can have a seat at the table to explain how we would affect their work and be implemented. this legislation, therefore, is also about transparency and accountability. agencies will be required to provide information to the public about the potential economic impacts of the proposed regulations. as the president said this september in his jobs speech, we should have no more regulation than help and health and the safety of the american people require. every rule should meet that commonsense test. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. costa: after my time is complete. this legislation helps us ensure the executive branch

regulations will meet that commonsense test by modernizing our regulatory process. we can guarantee that regulations are enacted that truly, that truly are in the best interest of the public, the business and the american people, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, a ranking subcommittee chairman in judiciary the time that remains. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. conyers: will the chairman yield to me for just a few seconds? would you tell me which health regulations you would like to get repealed or withdrawn? mr. costa: i don't think i can give you a specific on a health regulation.

i think what we're really talking about here is the impact of risk assessment versus risk management to ensure that we provide the best protection for health and safety when we implement regulations. mr. conyers: so you don't have any complaints against f.d.a. at the present time? mr. costa: the current proposed rules, i mean, some work better than others, some are implemented better than others. mr. conyers: you are ok with them? mr. costa: the proposed issue with regard to certain commodities show that the current regulatory system is working. mr. conyers: so you don't want to improve it? mr. costa: no, i want to ensure we meet good standards and good tests and this legislation i think does that. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman has reclaimed his time. now, does the gentleman from michigan yield to the gentleman

from georgia? mr. conyers: yes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/4 minutes. mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to the h.r. 3010. the tea party republicans are insulting the regulations that keep us safe and promote fairness to consumers. i'm disturbed by this assault on regulations that protect health, safety and well-being and the financial well-being of 99% of americans. by this majority, the tea party republicans, who having been elected as a result of all of the secret money received from the wall street corporations during the 2008 elections, are now clearly beyond any reasonable doubt are now doing the bidding of these wall street corporate interests. they're doing the bidding them

by this kind of legislation that would remove the kinds of regulations that protect the health, safety and well-being of 99% of the american people. it's not fair. it's not right. no jobs are being created. and this bill is a travesty, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, our troubled economy forces many americans to tighten their financial belts as they enter this holiday season. it is especially frustrating that the typical american worked more than two months, about 77 days, this year to pay for the cost of government regulations alone. for the unemployed, the news is even worse. official unemployment has hovered around 9% all year. when the unemployed and

underemployed and those who no longer seek employment are counted, the affected unemployment rate reaches almost 16%. but rather than add much-needed jobs to the economy, the obama administration has only added job-killing regulations that burden businesses and stifle economic growth. the administration counts 410 new major rules in its regulatory agendas for 2010 and 2011. mr. chairman, that is four times the number of major rules than during the first two years of the previous administration. and the white house has reported to congress that for most new major rules issued in 2010, the government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits. many more major regulations are now in the works. there's no assurance that the administration will adequately consider their cost and benefits either.

the regulatory accountability act provides the cure for this epidemic of regulatory cost. it is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that requires agencies to do a better job of determining whether new regulations are really needed. and when regulations are necessary, it requires agencies to find the lowest cost alternative to achieve its goals, in other words, you can still achieve the goals but the least costly way possible. the regulatory accountability act will not stop federal agencies from issuing needed regulations but it will stop them from imposing unjustified regulatory cost. in conclusion, i urge my colleagues to support the bill, look forward to its final passage, and before i yield back i want to recognize first the ranking member of the judiciary committee and then myself for a minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i thank the

chairman for yielding to me because we want to acknowledge that the committee's parliamentarian, allison, on her last day of service to the committee, has been an expert, has ruled fairly on all members of legislation that falls within the committee's jurisdiction and has been valuable to all the members on both sides of the aisle. we've come to rely on her excellent judgment and experience and on behalf of the democratic members of the committee, we wish her well in her future endeavors. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll reclaim my time and add that alley served well on the judiciary committee for six years. she's been on my personal staff for two additional years. she's been a deputy chief of staff for the full judiciary committee as well. in addition to having served previously on the immigration subcommittee. we value all of her expertise, her talents, her dedication

and/or contentiousness, all of those atory buttes will be wished. -- all those attributes will be missed. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 112-296. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed mountain report 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 for a demand for a division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-296. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-296 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: i thank you so much, mr. chair. i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 3010, and my amendment is quite simple. it would ensure that an executive agency takes into account the needs of our nation's most vulnerable, at risk subpopulations including veterans, low-income individuals, the elderly when considering new action. this so-called regulatory accountability act would undermine at least 25 health and safety rules that would

have an impact on the subpopulations. you know, the officers of this bill continues this side show by bringing bill after bill to this house floor claiming they will create jobs by limiting the size and scope and reach of government and repealing regulations that help and protect millions of americans, balancing profit over people. . like ma judiciaryans they try to convince the american public with the sleight of hand that the cost to industry far outweighs the cost of health and safety protections. once we get past all the flashing lights, smoke, and glitter, we see that this bill like others, and we are considering today, is just no different, mr. chair. h.r. 3010 would do far more than simply modify the executive rule making process. it would require agencies to

adopt the least costly regulations, a race to the bottom, mr. chair. instead of taking the most protective steps necessary to ensure the health and safety of americans, especially those most vulnerable. it would add dozens of new procedural hurdles without any promise of additional resources. it would tie up agency action for years when we know that so many americans desperately need help right now. these tough economic times are hard for everyone, mr. chair, especially those who are disproportionately affected by the economic crisis. we have no longer have time for tricks, illusions, and silly gags. study after study shows us that low-income communities live in the most toxic areas of our country. we must stop this bribery, trickery, and come back to reality. we must agree that it is good

policy for executive agencies to consider our nation's veterans, who according to the bureau of labor statistics, face an 11.7% unemployment rate, substantially higher than the national average. we must consider the disproportionately damaging healthy fix that air pollutants have on low-income communities that can't afford to move to wealthier areas. as the e.p.a. considers implementing provisions in the bipartisan clean air act. and we must agree that the executive branch must take into account the needs of our nation's seniors who have become the subject of a dangerous debate in washington over the future of entitlement programs. it's time to put down the magic wand and pick up our voting cards and support legislation that protects the least of these. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time is reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i oppose the amount.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you. the president obama has really curtailed more regulations than george w. bush. so it is really mistaken that this president has not taken into account the needs of industry. but i think that when you get to a point that you just want to abolish all regulation in favor of the so-called bottom line, someone has to draw the line, and i think that this amendment draws the line at subjecting seniors, veterans, and low-income people to air pollutants, people who are particularly vulnerable. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this

amendment regrettably seeks special consideration and rule making for a handful of groups, but the bill seeks to declare no favorites and gives no special policy treatment to any group. instead the bill creates evenhanded procedural reform that benefits all groups with greater transparency, accountability, and public participation and rule making. perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that regulatory outcomes not shortchange the needs of seniors, veterans, and lower income families. but the bill already assures that these groups and all others will obtain the protection they need. the bill always allows agencies to achieve the regulatory objectives that congress has set. generally if an agency can reach a goal with a lower cost regulation, though, of course it should. but if a costly regulation is needed to protect public health, safety, or welfare, including to protect seniors, veterans, and low-income families, the agency can adopt that regulation.

the agency just needs to show that the benefits justify the additional cost and the interest protected fall within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rule. in this reasonable balanced way, the bill guarantees statutory objectives will be met while we at least achieve real regulatory cost control. that is a win-win solution for everyone in every group. the federal government does not always need to do something more costly for special groups. it needs to always do something more cost-effective for everyone. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. moore: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, first degree murder proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will be postponed. it's now in order to consider

amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 112-296. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. olson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 112-296. offered by mr. olson of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. mr. olson: i thank the chair. my amendment clarifies one of the provisions in h.r. 3010 regarding rule making. the bill before the house states that when making a rule an agency shall consider potential cost and benefits associated with proposed rules, including direct, indirect, cumulative cost and benefits, and estimated impacts on american jobs. my commonsense amendment specifies that the agency

proposing the rule shall, this is a quote from the amendment, estimate the net gain or loss in domestic jobs, end quote, in their jobs market analysis. impact analysis. my amendment will ensure that the public has a full understanding of the real impact to american workers before the proposed rule becomes effective. at a time of record unemployment we must properly balance federal regulations to minimize job losses before these jobs leave our shores. this will not, will not stop federal agencies from issuing needed regulations. but it will stop them from opposing unjustified and unintended regulatory costs without informing the american people how these regulations will impact jobs right here in the united states of america. while regulations are necessary, my amendment requires when --

when they are necessary, my amendment requires agencies to find the lowest cost alternative to achieve the regulatory goals. i thank my fellow texan, chairman smith, for support of my amendment. i ask my colleagues to support as well. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. who claims time in opposition? the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: my good friend from texas has introduced an amendment that i wish that all of us could have joined with his amendment and mr. johnson's amendment that was not allowed in order. we have made a complaint not necessarily on one amendment, but on this underlying bill. and the amendment now adds yet another analytical requirement to the already numerous analytical requirements to h.r. 3010. i would have liked to have joined mr. olson on making this just a job creation amendment. or a job creation bill. but this adds as part of the

bill supermandate which overrides existing statutes like clean water act, clean air act, and the occupational safety and health act all of which reflect bipartisan legislative agreements to prohibit or limit consideration of costs in the rule making process. while i certainly agree with the idea of net job creation, h.r. 3010 does absolutely nothing to create jobs with or without the addition of this analytical requirement. we can't cure this bill. and we might have been able to do so with an amendment by mr. johnson that exempts all rules that result in job growth to be considered on the floor. after all, it was allowed for h.r. 527, the other bill that we are considering today. i don't know why we can't come together, someone would say, and

put forward bipartisan amendments that talk about creating jobs. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. olson: i thank the chair. i appreciate the comments from my colleague from houston, texas. i wish this amendment was not necessary. but with the current administration the regulatory environment has gotten out of control. the best example is the environmental protection agency. the rules and regulations they have imposed upon the oil and gas industry and power industry are on the state of texas. the best example of that is testimony from the administrator himself, right here on capitol hill. when asked if she saw impacts on jobs, she said no. not our business. that's wrong. if the agency is going to propose changes to some regulatory rule, they need to let the american people know how it will impact the jobs right

here at home. again, commonsense amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 112-296. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report number 112-296, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentlelady from texas, miss jackson, and a member opposed -- ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the

chairman very much. i wish today was spent really dealing with job creation rather than diminishing the social safety net for the american people. something that we fought long and hard for. but let me give you some good news. the unemployment has dropped to eight point, approximately 9% i believe, or a little less. it means the country's economy is going in the right direction. and the time that we are spending on the floor on these bills are job killers. we'd much rather have spent our time passing the american jobs act, putting money and investment in infrastructure, rehiring firefighters, teachers,

and law enforcement officers. and certainly we don't need to jeopardize this little baby's future with the opportunity for making sure full safety regulations are unfettered on behalf of the american people. my amendment is a simple clarification. the way the rules exist today is that the agency in its wisdom thinking about the safety and security of the american people, food safety, the environment, clean air, clean water, have the right, discretion, to give preliminary 90-day notice. what do we do in this bill? we demand that the agency give a 90-day notice in order to propose a rule and prior to having it published in the federal register. my friends, there is no doubt

that rule making is complex, but in many times rule making requires quick action. all my amendment does is put back in the discretion of the agency to determine whether they can have a 90-day notice. the g.o.p. claims slashing regulations is the way to create jobs. let me tell you what president reagan and president g.h.w. bush said. as the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, it's just nonsense. it's just made up. bruce bartlett was the economic advisor under presidents reagan and g.h.w. bush. indeed as the data show in 2010, only 0.3% of people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of government regulation intervention. but i will tell you this, this

little one's life will be in jeopardy because of the intrusive and the excessive 60-step process that these legislative initiatives are requiring. someone would say hogwash. the g.o.p. claims there has been a tsunami of regulations upped president obama is also a myth. it is simply a myth. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment and i am prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: this administration has approved fewer regulations than the predecessor, george w. bush, at the same time in their tenure. bloomberg finds that the annual cost of regulations under president obama at about $7 billion to $10 billion is closer to the average around the cost from 1981 to 2008. this g.o.p. bill tilts

rulemaking in favor of special interests. 60 new analytical steps, can you imagine? you'll be bogged down, spending money and using government time and using the taxpayer dollars to keep from protecting them. to keep from protecting this innocent child. to keep from protecting children with asthma. to keep from protecting people who need to have clean water. to keep from protecting those who need to have, if you will, a food safety requirement that keeps them from being impacted by e. coli. how unsensible, if i can use a word in quotes, is that? as the coalition for sensible safeguards, which includes common consumer federation of america, this bill will make it virtually impossible for federal agencies to ensure that american families are protected from tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial

schemes, dirty air and water and dangerous workplaces. give us a break. let us follow in the footsteps of president bush, president reagan and our predecessor, president bush, and realize that this regulatory scheme is broken. pass the jackson lee amendment and save lives and let's celebrate that unemployment has gone down and find a way to create jobs. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, one problem in rulemaking is the practice of agencies to negotiate regulations behind closed doors with a few interested parties, then propose, adopt a predetermined rule. to help cure this problem, the bill requires advanced notice of major and high impact rules that agencies may propose. these are the rules that cost $100 million or $1 billion or more respectfully. the advanced notice requirement assures that those who bear the

cost of these high cost regulations have an opportunity to shape agency decisions before they become entrenched in predetermined rulemaking proposals. it dramatically increases the rule makings. if emergency rules are needed, advanced notice may be waived. the amendment, on the other hand, makes advanced notice discretionary, not mandatory, with the agencies. that guarantees that advanced notice will rarely be used. it eliminates much-needed transparency, and it only helps those who negotiate rules behind closed doors that ram through deals through the rulemaking process ignoring public comment. the amendment may arise from a concern that advanced notice not unduly slow down emergency rules. if that is the case, there is no need for concern. like the existing administrative procedure act, the bill allows agencies to issue emergency rules before

they complete ordinary procedure. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. it hurts the bill. it hurts the process. and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote on that amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is the chair's understanding that amendment number 4 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 112-296. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 112-296 offered by mr.

connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. h.r. 3010 seductively titled the regulatory accountability act, would block every single new or pending federal regulation, including those regulations congress has already directed agencies to write. this bill would block tougher food safety oversight funding to last year's salmonella outbreak. it would gut public health law jeopardizing clean air, water and workplace safety. it would repeal 25 separate public health consumer protection and environmental laws congress has already passed. no wonder the statement of administration policy said the president would veto the bill if passed. with this legislation, the

house republican leadership has attempted to pass more than 170 pieces of legislation, riders to amendments to attack public health and the environment. but h.r. 3010's impacts would not stop here. the consumer financial protection bureau and securities and exchange commission would not be able to implement consumer protections mandated by law, including commonsense rules like prohibiting investment banks from betting against their own clients on the stock market. the e.p.a. would not be able to complete the toxic air pollution control rule which congress directed it to implement 21 years ago. our regulatory system is already so slow that this critical public health standard which would reduce mercury and arsenic pollution has been taken since 1990 to develop. apparently taking two decades to eliminate mercury pollution is much too fast for sponsors of the bill. this bill using seemingly innocuous requirements to use a tangle of red tape so thick it would be impossible for any

federal agency frankly to issue meaningful regulation ever again. this bill uses several clever provisions to create regulatory gridlock. the first seems harmless. it requires agencies to use the lowest cost requirement when issuing regulations. it directs agencies to consider alternative regulatory approaches proposed by industry. this model immolates the structure of the toxic substance control act which provides a case study for failed environmental legislation. like this bill, the toxic substances act, requires regulations to adhere to the lowest cost solution. what's wrong with that? for this reason, polluters have been successful in challenging almost every proposed regulation on the primis there are lower cost -- premise there are lower costs. for example, asbestos, as a known carcinogen, it's still legal to use asbestos in america unlike 50 advanced

countries because asbestos manufacturers won the case in court when they showed that prohibiting asbestos was not the lowest cost regulatory option. the toxic substances act is so ineffective that in its 35 years a mere five of 22,000 potential toxic chemicals have actually been regulated under its authority. this bill would require regulatory agencies to analyze every single alternative proposed by industry, a cispian task. the other clever provision of this bill, which also appears innocuous, is the requirement that agencies perform a cost benefit analysis for every regulatory alternative, even spurious ones, proposed by industry. of course, congress wants agencies to consider both the cost and benefits of regulations. that's why agencies already do provide full cost benefit

analysis of proposed regulations. require agencies to waste time analyzing every, even spurious, industry alternatives indefinitely delays any additional regulation. there are only two differences between this bill and the majority's previous attacks on the environment. first, because of its broad scope. this bill would be more destructive. second, its clever language shows how it could eviscerate regulatory agencies. that's why i present this amendment, to exempt the purviews of the bill. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, to protect public health and safety. without this change the so-called regulatory accountability act guts the important public health safety and consumer protection standards we've long counted on in this country. and it would in fact not hold industry accountable for any of its future actions. with that, mr. chairman, i

yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the amendment carves out of the bill essential sectors of regulation and guidance. these include all rules and guidance documents on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air. in many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that imposed the most cost without producing enough benefits. a good example is the environmental protection agency's recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants. e.p.a. estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 billion in total mercury reduction benefits. that's a cost-to-benefit -- excuse me -- that's a cost-to-benefit ratio of almost 1,200-1. proponents of the regulation

have nothing to fear from the bill's provisions to prevent costly rules like this. the bill always allows agencies to achieve the statutory objectives congress has set. those objections include protection of food, workplace, consumer safety as well as clean air and clean water. all the bill requires is that agencies consider the cost and benefits of regulatory alternatives and wherever possible adopt the least cost regulation that achieves that goal. if it justifies the additional costs and the rule is needed to protect public safety, health and welfare, the agency must adopt it. the agency just needs to show that the public health, safety and welfare interests that they seek to protect are in the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation itself. that is balanced reform that protects public health, safety and welfare and the american economy and the american

taxpayers and the small business owners of america. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. connolly: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-296. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment, the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-296 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment which would exempt rules proposed by the nuclear regulatory commission from the new impediments to the regulations in this bill. mr. chairman, there they go again. the right-wing republican house majority's practicing more voodoo economics. this time it's the belief that overregulation is the cause of our slow economic growth and high unemployment rate. there is no evidence to support this position, none. actuality, economywide studies do not find a significant decline in employment from regulatory policies. and some regulations actually create jobs due to regulatory compliance. more broadly, findings from the office of management and budget in both the republican and democratic administrations show the benefits of regulations far outweigh their costs. most recently, o.m.b. found that benefits from major rules

issued from 2001 to 2010 ranged from $136 billion to $651 billion and costs between $42 billion and $62 billion. despite these facts, the right-wing house republican leadership presses ahead for what it calls regulatory reform. today's bill in the name of so-called reform adds over 60 new procedural and analytical hoops, agencies and departments must jump through before a regulation can be issued. the result is to impede, obstruct and delay government protecting the health and welfare of our people. not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public safety, health and the environment, such as the natural resources defense council, public citizen, defenders of wildlife oppose this bill. according to the coalition for sensible safeguards which represents the coalition of many such groups, this bill will grind to a halt the rulemaking process and is nothing less than an attempt to roll back critical public safeguards and promote industry interests and protecting the

health and lives of the american citizens. americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their health and safety at risk. one example that highlights this fact is the subject of this amendment, nuclear power. the risks and danger of nuclear power will remain all the more clear this year. in japan we all watched in horror when that country was devastated by a meltdown of the fukushima nuclear power plant. and we are now told that over 10% of the land of that country will be unuseable for decades. later, virginia was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. . nuclear power plants prevention of meltdowns is the key. that's why i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 1242, the nuclear power plant safety act of 2011 sponsored by representative markey which is designed to help do that. among other changes it would require the n.r.c. to impose rules requiring plants to upgrade to withstand severe

events like earthquakes and enough backup power to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time. the n.r.c. must have the ability, flexibility to impose new regulations quickly to save guard the health and well-being of americans. impeding the nuclear regulatory agency's ability to regulate will not save one job but mice cost millions of lives in the event of a disaster. sadly this bill makes the ability to regulate nuclear power plants almost impossible. for me this concern hits close to home. a nuclear power plant at indian point, about which many people, including myself, have had concerns for years, lies less than 40 miles away from the center of new york city in my district. there are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant. the same radius used by the n.r.c. that was recommended after the fukushima disaster. the two earthquake fault lines, and according to the n.r.c. the most likely to experience more damage due to an earthquake. my constituents and indeed all

americans safe in offering this amendment today it would exempt, exempt the nuclear regulatory commission from onerous requirements for rule making. with this amendment the n.r.c. would have the ability to safeguard health and safety as it should. we must pass this amendment so that rule making is not impoded. i urge support. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, does the gentleman from new york have any time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining. mr. smith: i'm prepared to close and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, the argument for this amendment is very simple. this bill would make it almost impossible by putting 60 new requirements in the way of agencies to make new rules, make it almost impossible for rule making and the fact, especially

for emergency or safety rule making in the event that we proceed -- perceive the necessity for such thing. at least for nuclear power plants the potential for disaster, the potential for killing massive numbers of people we have seen, we have seen at chernobyl, three mile identify lavep, fukushima, at -- three mile aland, fukushima, at least have the government agency to continue to have the power to protect our people. a vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to have the government -- to continue to have the government have the power to protect our people. i vote against this amendment and for this bill is a vote to put the risks -- lives of all our people at risk and prevent the government from protecting the lives of our people and it would be almost an immoral vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the amendment creates a special carve out from the legislation's

requirements for regulations and guidance of a nuclear regulatory commission. regulation of the nuclear power industry, however, should go to the same rule making process as other regulations. in this way all interested party will have the best opportunity to test their assumptions about nuclear power and nuclear waste. perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that the legislation could prevent the nuclear regulatory commission from issuing emergency rules and guidance for rules that adequately protect public safety. that concern, however, is unfounded. the legislation preserves agency's abled to make interim final rules for good cause. this exception certainly would cover emergency rules from the commission. the bill also allows agencies to adopt alternatives to least cost regulations. if interest of public health, safety, or welfare require costly rules. only two conditions need to be satisfied.

first, the costlyier rule must produce benefits that justify the additional cost. second, the benefits must serve public health, safety, or welfare interest within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation. surely the nuclear regulatory commission and any other agency can adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare within those conditions. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is oned amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. smith: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 7 printed in part b of house report number 112-296. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part b of house

report number 112-296, offered ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 477, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much. and i think it's important to reinforce to our colleagues that many of us are on the floor of the house this morning as these bills have come through the judiciary committee and i am just struck by the fact that i am trying to reflect on the vast reach that these bills have taken up, we even have another bill just like this next week and i'm for the life of me trying to reflect on where the data is that these bills are going to create jobs or that there is a problem. and that is what the task of the members of the united states congress are. this body and the other body, we are to come as part of the

people's house and solve problems. for example, i am going to be calling for hearings on the heinous actions of sexual abuse against our children in institutions such as penn state and syracuse and places around this country that are probably yet uncovered and yet undiscovered. that is a problem. our children being abused. sexually abused. and the vialness of the cover-up. we are sent here to solve problems. and frankly i am concerned that h.r. 3010 does not solve a problem. i'd rather be addressing the vialness of sexual abuse as a epidemic across this nation. but today we are here with a regulatory bill. no evidence that anybody has been disturbed by the regulation s that have been put in place to save the lives of the american

people. so my amendment is a simple one again. having been on homeland security since its origins, meaning the committee and before the department was even created as a member of the select committee on homeland security, having gone to ground zero, and as i reflect seeing the smoke still billowing from the ashes, and looking at the rescue and recovery teams they had not yet stopped seeking to recover those who tragically were in the midst of this hellish quagmire of terrorism. how can you not see the reason in waiving this bill or ex-iming all rules promulgated by the department of homeland security. it is the newsest department. it has the greatest scrutiny in place for the kinds of regulation that is are involved. since the creation of the department of homeland security in 2002, we have overhauled the

government in ways never done before. steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failure that led to 9/11 do not happen again. the department of homeland security has helped push the united states forward in being innovative and protecting our nation. don't stifle that. don't get in front of blocking us from stopping time square bombers and shoe bombers and christmas day bombers. that would impact the american people. don't stop us from helping the coast guard do its duty dealing with the travails of the waterways of america, the many huge ports that would open its doors to heinous acts with cargo. that's what they are telling us to do by making sure homeland security, securing the nation, has to be subjected to these amendments. i know about the vulnerabilities and security firsthand. we see these all the time. there are 350 major ports.

they need to do their work. they don't need to be stifled by legislative scheme that puts in place 60 new provisions to get a regulation out. how insane? help us secure america. i'm asking my colleagues to support my amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time is reserved. does the gentleman from texas claim time in opposition? mr. smith: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: it simply says if it's a regulation dealing with the securing of the american people it is exempted from 60 various look sees, delaying tactics, long windedness that will prevent that regulation from coming through to help the likes of the coast guard do its job, customs and border patrol do its job, i.c.e. do its job, the t.s.a. dealing with aviation security

to do its job. how clearer do we need to be? cities and towns across the nation facing threats, indeed every day ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple federal departments and agencies as well as operational collaboration across federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. nongovernmental organizations of private sector. how in the world can we do our job and protect the american people? how can we provide small businesses with the opportunity for new technology procurement by layering and layering their ability to get this done? i ask my colleagues to stand with me in supporting the homeland and homeland security. vote for the jackson lee amendment that exempts homeland security regulations once and for all, let's be bipartisan on securing and protecting the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment seeks to shield the

department of homeland security from the bills urgency needed rule making reforms. there is no good reason to provide that shield. for example, take the department's rules to extend compliance deadlines for states to issue secured driver's licenses under the real i.d. act. 10 years after 9/11 hydrogeners used fraudulent licenses to board airports -- hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes. the department of homeland security continues to extend the deadline. clearly the department of homeland security should not be exempt from the bill's provisions. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 112-296 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 3 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 5 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. amendment number 6 offered by mr. nadler of new york. amendment number 7 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the nim time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-296 by the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk are redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 112-296, offered

by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 232. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 112-296, by the gentleman from texas -- the gentlewoman texas, miss jeem, upon which further proceedings were postponed an on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 112-296, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 162. the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 112-296, by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in part b of house report number 112-296, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 171, the nays are 242, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6, printed in part b of house report 112-296, by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. upon which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-296 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-296 by the gentleman from texas -- the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays pr valed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in part b of house report 112-296, offered

by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recordered vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a two-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 247.

the chair: the yeas are 175, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on 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 adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3010 and reports the bill pack to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union. under the rule, the resolution is orered. 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 reform the process by which federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the chair: the house will be in order. the chair: the gentleman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa. >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: mr. bosswell of iowa moves -- the clerk: mr. boswell of iowa moves a motion to recommit add at the end the following section, guaranteeing the lowest prescription drug prices for seniors. the act and the amendments made by this act shall not apply to new regulations or the provision of existing regulations that reduce cost or increase coverage for pharmaceuticals and other health services for seniors or efforts by the secretaries of health and human services, veterans administration and defense to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. this motion to recommit will provide both parties the opportunity to come together to save hundreds of millions of dollars, rein in federal spending and support america's seniors, troops, and veterans. let me be clear. listen up. this -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: will the house please come to order. the gentleman from iowa may proceed. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. let me be clear. this amendment will not prevent the bill it will be incorporate spood the bill and will be immediately voted upon. the amendment is direct and incredibly important. simply put, it will prevent the

underlying bill from creating regulatory hurdles for low cost drugs. day in and day out, we talk about spending in this country and particularly in this congress. well, my amendment gives the chambers a chance to rein in one of the greatest culprits in our out of control spending, health care. today, health care spending is more than 17% of our nation's g.d.p., a number so so massive that a -- a number so massive that a five-point reduction would save americans $870 billion. medicare part d covers 9.5 million medicare beneficiaries. so how do we pay for prescription drugs? 83% of medicare part d funds come from our nation's general revenue and c.b.o. has estimated that america's medicare part d spending will total approximately $53 billion in 2012. that's quite an incentive to pay for drugs more efficiently. this amendment helps us to do that.

. 2 lowers the cost of pharmaceuticals from being hindered by the underlying bill. we have done too much to support america's seniors and improve health care today to let regulations increase costs on our citizens or jeopardize their access to care. nationwide we have provided greater access to health services to medicare beneficiaries and reduced the costs by allowing access to discounted drugs in the medicare part d. we sent checks -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. could we please have order in the house so the gentleman from iowa may be heard. the gentleman may proceed. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. please listen up, this is very important to all of us. we send checks to seniors, this year we sent checks this year who hit the paragraph d doughnut hole and we made a commitment to close it by 2020. we must continue to reduce the cost of the medicine, but we must also reduce the cost to our

nation. the second part of the amendment ensures that this bill will not prevent the secretary of defense , veterans' affairs, or health and human services from negotiating for lower drug prices. military health care covers the needs of more than nine million individuals ranging from active duty, their families, and veterans. fortunately the secretaries of the department of defense and the v.a. have the authority to negotiate with companies for the price of drugs. we must protect their ability to serve the millions of military members, active duty, and retired, and their families who served our nation. not only will this amendment defend these agencies to ensure the best prices for our veterans and military families, it will protect any future provision that will provide the secretary of human services the same power to serve the nearly 30 million medicare part d beneficiaries and make medicine more affordable. our constituents know what a driving force health care costs are on our nation's spending

crisis. they feel it every day in their homes and do all they can to get by. by my own constituent in des moines, dan recently wrote to me to say that she is, quote, concerned about their prices of medicine our country as is often the biggest part of most citizens' out of pocket health care cost, end of quote. echoing her concern in a small town donna wrote, quote, countless americans can't afford to buy medication and yet can't afford to go without them. those constituents and many more told me if we can pass legislation to lower the cost of medicine that it, quote, would be extremely popular with your constituents and it would be easy to garner bipartisan support. end of quote. i agree with my constituents. we should do this. i hope that you will support this and bring it back and let's pass it and lets be sure we do the best we can to help our seniors, our military, the military families, and our veterans. thank you. i reserve the rest of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arkansas. seek recognition. >> i rise in opposition to the motion, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. 11 months ago on the floor of this house the president of the united states promised the american people to, quote, reduce barriers to growth and investment. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. crawford: when we find rules that put a necessary burden on businesses we will fix them. those are the words of the president of the united states in this body. i couldn't agree more. that very month the president issued an executive order that said, quote, our regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation,

competitiveness, and job creation, end quote. i couldn't agree with the president more. the president said our regulatory system, quote, must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends, end quote. and that it must take into account benefits and cost. i couldn't agree with the president more. he was right. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. could the house please be in order. thank you. the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: the president's words were correct. he was right when he spoke here. mr. griffin: when our regulatory system doesn't meet the standard

the president's supposed standard, it kills jobs, suppresses economic growth, and locks us even further into stagnation. we see the evidence all around us. i recently hosted a jobs conference in little rock in my district at the president clinton library. which brought together a diverse group of over 60 private sector job creators. they were there to discuss how federal policies affect their ability to succeed in the marketplace. the job creators that i heard from in little rock that day overwhelmingly agreed they were of one voice. it was almost unanimous. the obama administration's overregulation of the private sector injects uncertainty into the market which stifles job creation.

one of my constituents, susan, a constituent of mine who owns a number of international house of pancake restaurants, said this, quote, as a business owner today i am in a constant posture of defense. end quote. let me be more specific. some of the jobs conference participants were for companies that provide low cost electricity to arkansas families and businesses. but even their miss is under siege by the obama administration's e.p.a. which is intent on forcing some power plants offline. the compressed timeline for many recently issued regulations requires too much in too short a time frame for these electricity providers to comply.

sandra bird of the arkansas electric cooperatives put it this way, quote, as a for instance the two most prominent rules, utility mack and the clean air visibility rule, could actually cause us to have to shut down our coal plants if they are not extended. end quote. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. griffin: plants get shut down, electricity cost also gup, and more jobs will be lost. we will not sit idly by and watch as this administration kills jobs in arkansas or in any other state in this great country. the president hasn't been to arkansas in a long, long time, but i would be happy to show him the impact of overregulation firsthand. republicans in congress took the

president's words to heart. his words on regulatory reform, we said, hey, you're right, mr. president. we are going to do something about it. we saw the evidence of overly burdensome regulations all around us. so what did we do? we got to work. we wrote a bill. the regulatory accountability act. to reform a regulatory system so it does exactly what the president said it should do. we built the bill on the very terms of president obama's executive order. it calls on agencies to consider the benefits and the costs before they regulate. it calls on agencies to use the best reasonably available science. it calls on agencies to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. and it does so while assuring that agencies will achieve every

single statutory objective congress sets before them. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. griffin: this political motion -- is an attempt to -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from arkansas has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa requests a recorded vote. those favoring a record the vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. 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. [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 186, the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request

for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, 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 253. the nays are 167. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise?

the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the passing of former congressman carlos -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, members, congressman morehead represented his district from 2-to 6-. -- 1992 to 1996. carlos was a gentleman in every

sense of the word, kind, thoughtful and absolutely dedicated to serving his constituents. when i was first running for office early in my career and met carlos, he was always gracious, even fatherly, taking me aside and giving me counsel though we were in different parties. mr. schiff: i never remember carlos saying an ill word about anyone. he was able to disagree about policy without making to personal, and he provided a great example for another generation that's gotten away from that kind of civility. carlos served the communities in his district ably and effectively throughout his years in congress. he served as ranking member on both the judiciary and energy and commerce committees during his tenure. he was particularly known for his expertise on energy policy and intellectual property. carlos is survived by his wife, valerie, three children, six grandchildren, a sister, three nieces and nephews. i'd ask you to all join me in a

moment of silence in memory of congressman carlos moorhead. mr. schiff: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what reason does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: and i yield to my friend, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the sdratic whip for yielding. on monday the house will meet at noon to 2:00. no votes. on tuesday and wednesday, 10:00 for morning hour and noon for legislative. on thursday the house will neat at 9:00 for lenl business. we currently expect last votes no later than 3:00 p.m. thursday but members are

adviced to keep their plans flexible as we look to adjourning for the first session. members were informed yesterday that we now expect to be in session and voting the week of december 12. the exact voting schedule is not yet known and will depend on the progress of our legislative business. next week, the house will consider number of bills under suspension of the bills monday and tuesday. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider two bills which were part of the house republicans jobs agenda, h.r. 10, the raines act, sponsored by representative geoff davis of kentucky, and h.r. 1633, the farm dust regulation prevention act sponsored by christie noem and mr. hurt. we may consider legislation related to expiring existing law. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his time and i

yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. if i could clarify, and i understand we are coming up to the end of the year. there is a lot of business which needs to be done in the time we make and so i understand his urging to be flexible. my members have asked me, i'm sure your members have as well, friday the 9th is scheduled on the calendar to be a nonwork day. as a matter of fact, the 8th was the target date. neither side very seldom -- very rarely meets its target. but can you in your flexibility , clearly we told our members the week, the following week, the week of the 12th, that undoubtedly we're going to be here. but can you give them some sort of confidence level with respect to the 9th or is that not yet possible? i yield. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, as i

said earlier, it is our intention to finish legislative business for the week of next thursday at 3:00 p.m., and, again, to remain flexible while we monitor the progress of all the discussions going on with the gentleman's side of the aisle, both in this chamber and the one across the way. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. thank you for that. possibility here, thursday at 3:00, clearly i don't believe we will finish the business we need to finish before we leave. therefore, my presumption is we will be back in the following week. therefore, friday would not be the last day and therefore we do whatever we have to do on monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday. we should plan on a five-day week at least for the following week? i yield. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i say to the gentleman, the request is for members to leave

their schedules flexible as i indicated we do expect to be in session the week of december 12 and the exact voting schedule is unknown at the time and depend upon the discussions surrounding the issues that we need to address prior to the christmas holiday. i yield back. mr. hoyer: further, on the schedule just so our members have pretty clear information, the week of the 19th which is the following week, can you give me some thought on what you are advising your members with respect to the week of the 19th? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd say to the gentleman, i join with the speaker in saying we want to be out of mere by the 16th -- here by the 16th and it will all depend on whether we will get the work done. so it is not our desire to be here the week running up to christmas. and i'd say to the gentleman,

it is my hope we can finish our business by the end of the week of the 12th. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i want to tell my friend there is overwhelming bipartisan unanimity on the gentleman's hope, but for purposes of my members, i would say i hope our members would take the flexibility beyond the week ending on the 16th and make sure at least on the 19th and 20th and 21st they're flexible as well. i don't think none of us want to be meeting that week but we have a lot of work to do as the gentleman knows. the gentleman said we may go to conference next week on the milcon bill that was passed by the house and senate. it's the only bill i think is in that status. i do anticipate other bills being added in that conference and of course we know that there are nine appropriation bills which still remain unpassed, a number of which

have not passed the senate and some of which have not passed the house itself. can the gentleman clarify the situation that may result or may be effective as it relates to such a conference. i yield my friend the time. mr. cantor: if the gentleman is asking about the shape or form of an appropriations package and what it is we'll be voting on, as the gentleman knows, the committee on both sides of the aisle is engaging in discussions to try and finish up our work and look forward to that happening, again, within the time frame that both of us would like to see happen. i yield back. mr. hoyer: that doesn't clarify very much but i understand the gentleman's problem with respect to what's being done. let me ask the gentleman, if we can't get agreement, is the gentleman, in light of his focus on the 16th as the date

of adjournment, is the gentleman saying we might consider a c.r. for some period of time, either a -- either the balance of the year, continuing resolution, or a continuing resolution for some of the time? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. our hope is, again, to be able to avoid that so that we can have a full appropriations package to dictate the priorities that we can agree upon for spending the rest of the year. again, as the gentleman knows, we are operating within the context of the budget control act, the agreement that was put into law at the end of the debt ceiling discussions and begin -- at the beginning of august of this year. as you know, as the gentleman knows, the amount of spend regular duckses is not enough for many of us on our side of the aisle and perhaps may not be enough or too much on his

side of the aisle but we are operating under the deal that was agreed upon and the hope is to try to finalize all bills and we are working toward that end at this point. i thank the gentleman for the question. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i am pleased to hear that he is going to be sticking with the level of funding that we agreed upon. i think the gentleman's observation is correct. there are many people on my side who believe that is lower than necessary to meet the responsibilities they would like to see met and on your side, it's too much in terms of the fiscal situation that confronts us. but i'm pleased to hear that we're going to be consistent with the 1.043 discretionary number set forth in the budget control act. also, i -- my friend knows that in the budget control act, we

also provided for some head room for emergency spending as a result of disasters. the gentleman will knows -- well knows our region and the northeast was hit very hard by a hurricane, we've had an earthquake, we have had tornse and other natural disasters -- tornadoes and other natural disasters. that give $11 billion of head room. will we continue to honor that part of the agreement as well? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. as i said earlier to the gentleman, our -- our intention is to operate and abide by the terms of the budget control act. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that. i was profoundly disappointed that the so-called super committee or the special committee on deficit reduction either was unable to reach an agreement on a $4 trillion, at

least, agreement to reduce our deficit, or as i had urged individually, to extend its life for a period of time, 60 to 90 days, which would have allowed us further opportunity to reach such a deal. i think that is absolutely essential for our country. i think it would be an extraordinarily plus for our economy if we were to reach such an agreement. i think it would raise the confidence of the american people and raise the confidence of the international community. and not inconsequentially, the rating agencies as well. we didn't reach an agreement. we didn't extend the life of that commission. i would like to see us set up another process to give us accelerated consideration of such an agreement. having said that, we now have

built into the budget control act disciplinary consequence of that failure and that was the sequester. $1.2 trillion across the board cut divided equally between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. the speaker has said that we are morally bound to accept the defense cuts if the super committee failed. that's a quote. i wonder if you support the speaker in that commitment? mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i say to the gentleman, i don't know the quote from which the gentleman pulls the speaker's statement. i know i share with the speaker a commitment toward fiscal discipline and that there will be the requisite cuts to go along with the increase in the debt ceiling that will occur by law at the end of this year. and it is my hope that we can act in a bipartisan way to find

a way to implement cuts that can replace the across the board cuts that will do what i believe is irreparable damage to the defense department and our ability to defend this country. if i could, mr. speaker, i quote from secretary panetta, who said, as recently as monday, if congress fails to act over the next year, the department of defense will face devastating automatic across the board cuts that will tear a seam in the nation's defense. he went on to say the half trillion in adecisional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the mission to which it is assigned. furthermore, the pentagon' ability to provide benefits and support u.s. troops an their familiesal would be jeopardized. he ended his statement by saying that our troop december serve better and our nation

demands better. i say to the gentleman that it is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to try to do that which eluded the super committee and the other efforts along the way this year to try and come up with the requisite cuts. again, i hope that we could do so and to make sure that the cuts are there, not to avoid the cuts, but to make sure the cuts are there, but not allow them to eviscerate our ability to defend this country. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i appreciate mr. panetta's quote and i believe mr. panetta's quote is an accurate quote and i believe substantively correct. let me give the gentleman another quote from the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. i know the gentleman knows admiral mullen, who served so ably as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and he said, quote, the most

significant threat to our national security is our debt. period, close quote. and he went on to say, and the reason i say that is because the ability of our country to resource our military and have a pretty good feeling and understanding about what our national security requirements are is going to be directly proportional over time, not next year or year after, but over time, to help our economy. so i would agree with the gentleman that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement. i would hope the gentleman would share my view that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement on a big deal, a little deal, as the speaker and i have discussed, will simply push off until next year a decision and the year after, just doing it incrementally. that will not give confidence to the markets, it will not give confidence to the business community, it will not help our economy either domestically or internationally. so my concern, i tell my friend, is if we now walk away

from the sequester as we have walked away from too many agreements in the past, if we walk away from the sequester, we will again remove the discipline, remove the incentive, remove the imperative, as the gentleman points out, remove the imperative for coming to a bipartisan agreement which as bowles simpson, the fwang of six, as the 100, the 40 republicans and 60 democrats, as the 46 equally divided between republican and democrats have said, we need to reach a balanced deal. a deal which will restrain and cut spending a deal that will deal with entitlements, sustainability over time and a deal that will provide a revenue stream that will allow us to fund what we believe to be absolutely essential, of which as the gentleman points

out, and he and i agree national security is up with. i would hope we would not walk away from that disciplinary incentive to in fact have republicans and democrats come to an agreement. i'm glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, no one is talking about walking away from fiscal discipline. i share in the gentleman's desire to try to address the real problem here, which is washington spending. as the gentleman knows, the republican majority in the house is -- has the only plan on the table that actually is a big deal that fixes the problem. and unfortunately, there's just not an agreement on those very bilge issue -- big issues. as i said and indicated earlier, there have been at least three attempt this is year to chase the so-called big deal and the problem is, there's no agreement. there's no agreement on doing what's necessary to fix the real problem.

so if we have been there and the president himself has said that there may be some issues that have to be dispose of or resolved in next year's election. but it doesn't mean we can't make some incremal progress. i disagree with the gentleman, mr. speaker that somehow if we make some progress, that that somehow takes away from our ability to solve big problems. we've already demonstrated around here, the bar is pretty low when it comes to fixing big problems. that's unfortunate. but it doesn't mean we can't work incrementally together. i'm with the gentleman, i know that the response from the markets and otherwise are not going to be positive if we don't fix the problem through a so-called big deal. but the point of contention is one, the unwillingness to fix the real problem, because as we -- it's we in the majority that have put forward the only fix long-term, as c.b.o. would say, and the other point of contention is we don't believe that now is the time to raise

taxes on small business men and women. it's not the millionaires and billionaires, that's not the point. we don't believe that when you want to grow the economy, when you want to create jobs that we should be putting a higher burden on the small business people in this country, to create the jobs we want. so if we know that there's that divide, we've already seen it play out for eight or nine months, let's try to work incrementally together in a bipartisan way, the way most people do that have differences, come together where you can, set aside the differences. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i believe that both sides have shown flexibility in some respects. certainly, a number of republicans and democrats showed flexibility on the bowles-simpson commission. none of the house members on the republican sideshows that

flexibility for reasons that i've heard them articulate, i understand they had reasons but unfortunately we didn't get to the 4 votes in a bipartisan -- to the 14 votes in a bipartisan way on the commission. as you know, both i -- i was not on the commission but i supported the commission's report, would have vote for the commission's report, as did mr. durban, the minority whip -- the majority whip in the senate. let me say to the gentleman, with respect to small business, nobody wants to put taxes on small business. as a matter of fact, we want to reduce taxes for small business. we offered that on the floor in the united states senate yesterday, every democrat but one voted for that yesterday. and unfortunately, it did not pass. your side, as you know, offered an alternative, an alternative

that tnt even enjoy the support of the majority of your party, so that we need to get to bipartisan support but i wish the gentleman would, when we talk about trying to ask some of the wealthiest people in america to try to pay a little more, not a lot more, but a little more, to meet the only fwations so our country is fiscally sound, would not keep putting forth this, what i believe to be a windmill of small business, we are for small business. this tax cut would reduce substantially taxes on small business, your party, the majority, voted against it in the united states senate, it hasn't been brought to the floor. we would hope that we would extend the tax cut for middle class, working people, and not restore that tax and that that would affect both individuals and as the gentleman knows, small business. so that we have a tax cut that we're recommending, the

president's gone all over the country and talked about, but it hasn't been brought to the floor. we think that is regrettable. we hope you would do that furthermore, frankly, the millionaires tax, the billionaires' tax, is as you know, a net taxable income level. not going to hurt small business at all, not going to hurt job creators at all, and frankly i will tell my friend we are going to follow an an jida, i don't think you could quote an economist that would tell you that your regulatory bills that we've been spending time on, day after day, week after week, which i know sounds good to your people and we need regulatory reform, we need regulatory simplification, we need to make it in america, one of the ways we need to do so is make it profitable to make it in america, i agree with that 100%, but i don't have any economist who told me that that's going to create jobs and

as a matter of fact bruce bartlett, an economist for the reagan administration and bush administration said specifically it will have little, if any, effect. do you have an economist who said that that's going to grow jobs? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. let me respond to the gentleman about bowles-simpson. it reflects the fact it didn't fix the real problem. it didn't fix the entitlement problem we have in this country given the demographics. if you raise taxes with the bowles-simpson plan suggested and gave you options to do, it's like throwing good money out. i think the american people are tired of it. we had to fix the problem. and that's what we want to do. and as far as the sequester's concerned, i want to reiterate

that we're not talking about and i'm not suggesting not doing all the cuts because we believe, and this is the change that we put in place here when we became majority, we believe you shouldn't be raising the credit limit of the country without turning things around and stopping the spending. so we're not talking about or not suggesting not doing all of the cuts. what i'm saying is we need to work together to find the commensurate cuts that aren't those that disproportionately affect the defense of our country. and i think the gentleman agrees with me, a priority is the defense of our country, and that's why if we can't see our way clear to even finding $1.2 trillion through the joint select committee process, then let's look to see how we can come together in an incremental way. but i think the american people are looking for some progress here. but i want to tell the gentleman, again, i don't believe that raising taxes is a

good thing. and, again, the gentleman continues to talk about balanced deals and that is a euphemism for saying raising taxes. but, look, if we disagree on that, if the gentleman thinks it's good to raise taxes then we have a disagreement. so let's instead focus on areas where we can actually find common ground, and the common ground should be, as the gentleman suggests, on small businesses. now, every economist there is will tell you that uncertainty that add -- that added costs will cause an impediment to job creation. i'm sure the gentleman visited small business people in his district like i have in mine, and the kind of regulatory measures we brought forward, whether it's regulations being proposed by the e.p.a., those being proposed by the nlrb or any of the other measures, the ones that we passed on the

floor today, these are measures to remove the uncertainty of added costs to our businesses, our small business men and women. today's measures and this week's measures went to the fact that we need some common sense put back into the regulatory process. we want to make sure that agencies take into consideration their actions and the consequences that those actions have on small businesses. we want to make sure that the agencies are going to a cost benefit analysis. that's a balanced and sensible approach and, yes, i think you'll find agreement among economists, if you got that kind of certainty you will lend it -- lend the process towards a better economy to create jobs, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. i take from his comment, however, that he doesn't have an economist who has said that these bills are going to grow jobs. i agree with him that economists certainly believe that over the long term certainty is a good thing.

we all agree on that. i hope all of us agree on that, and i'd like to accomplish that. that's one of the reasons why i'm for a big deal. but let me give you a quote from ben bernanke as it relates to your saying we want to raise taxes. nobody wants to raise taxes. i will tell my friend, i've been in office now for a long it period of time, some 40-plus years, takes zero courage, zero colonel to spend money and not pay for it. we believe we ought to pay for things. that's the difference. taxes are the money we collect to pay for things. taxes that we collect to pay for our national security, taxes we collect to pay for researchers at n.i.h., taxes we pay for f.b.i. agents to protect us from terrorists, both domestic and foreign. those are what our taxes are. taxes are to help our kids get a college education so we can be competitive in the international community. it's paying for things that

we're for, and i will tell my friend i'm glad you come to the point we're going to pay for things because very frankly and the gentleman knows we're collecting revenues at a far lesser rate than your budget asked to spend, that your budget, the ryan budget, which as you well know, did not balance the budget within the next 20 years. did not balance the budget within the next 20 years and was all on the cut side and the gentleman well knows was not a viable document. i'm not sure it would have passed the senate even if the republicans had been in control of the senate. but notwithstanding that, let me give you a quote from ben bernanke, because i agree with you and you and i talked privately and we are now talking publicly, we ought to come together, we ought to be courageous together. we ought to address this extraordinarily dangerous fiscal crisis that confronts us.

ben said this, we need to push our elected leaders to face the long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty and a willingness to sacrifice their own re-election. this means not kicking the can any more. that's why if we abandon the sequester that will be kicking the can. if we abandon trying to get a big deal that will be kicking the can. this means, as he said, it means reaching a deal on debt, revenue and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. well, it came and it went and we failed. it means considering all options from entitlement programs, and the gentleman knows i've given a number of speeches on having to deal with entitlement programs. we need to do that. but we also need to deal with taxes and revenues so we pay for what we buy, and we don't tell the american people, we can't buy that if you don't want to pay for it.

now, very frankly, i think in the short term, given the economic -- given the economic crisis, lack of jobs and the struggling economy, raising additional revenues in that time frame has bowles-simpson and domenici and rivlin said is not good policy and would not propose them and has not been proposed, as the gentleman knows. but i will tell my friend that paying for things, and as the gentleman knows, one of the reasons we've gotten into this problem was we didn't pay for things in the last decade. we bought a lot of stuff and we didn't pay for it. we asked our chirp to pay for it because it's -- children to pay for it because it's a delayed effect. we didn't pay for the wars. we didn't pay for the prescription drug bill, and we didn't pay for the tax cuts. simply giving up revenue, voting for tax cuts and continuing to buy things is frankly i think not only not courageous but it is a disservice to this generation

and generations yet to come and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, and the gentleman asks what regulations that we put forward or bills removing impediments and the regulatory process. i mean, the keystone pipeline, look at that bill. that bill says we'll create 12,000 construction jobs right away if we can remove the necessary government red tape getting in the way of that project. so i don't see that there's any disagreement over that. but somehow we have, your side saying we shouldn't do that. and if the gentleman's so interested in paying for things, because i don't believe that that's an issue now because we're not saying remove the sequester. what we're saying is finding cuts elsewhere but imposing that discipline. but if we're talking about not paying for things, what about the stimulus? my goodness. that was an $800 billion-plus effect at the end, didn't pay for anything, and ended up

imposing all kinds of debt now on us and our children and theirs. so i am with the gentleman, let's be courageous. again, our budget was put out there. in the joint select committee process, our side proposed a plan to come together. and i think that the gentleman knows on his side there were comments made that there was any coalesceans on the part of the democrats as to a way to come to some solution. so i'm for the courage, but seemingly after looking at the three processees that have taken place, the biden talks, the white house talks and those between the speaker and the president and the leader on the other side of the capitol as well as now the joint select committee, all of those did not come to a result. so if that's the case, let's then say, well, wait a minute. maybe something's not working here. then, let's try and see what can work and what can work.

we really can come together in a bipartisan way and find something to agree on. let's set aside those big differences, and the president even suggested back in the spring those big differences may get in the way. so, fine, let's find a way for us to at least make some progress because some progress is better than none. so incremental progress is better than no progress. that's for sure. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment, and i agree with some progress is progress. however you describe it. let me clarify because i want to make sure in terms of coming together and reaching some progress he mentioned the -- i'm not sure that every republican agreed to it. maybe the gentleman knows. but there was. mr. toomey put a proposal on the table which offered $300 billion in additional revenues.

of course that was offset by an $800 billion increase next year in tax cuts or a net reduction of $500 billion in revenues for next year. excuse me, for january, 2013. let me ask the gentleman, in reaching that, the gentleman mentioned entitlements, i agree with him on entitlements, but the gentleman said he's not for any increased revenues. all three of the bipartisan commissions, the two commissions and the gang of six, all three have said that revenues must be part of that picture. that's taxes. fancy word for taxes. does the gentleman agree with that because that certainly was the basis for bipartisanship in all three of those? i'd yield. mr. cantor: again, i say to the gentleman, i think our side demonstrated. we put together plans both in

the processees ending with the joint select committee and in our budget. i think we come from the perspective, mr. speaker, that let's fix the problem. if you don't fix the problem and then you want to raise taxes, especially on small business people, you are throwing good money after bad and you're aggravating the crisis that is gripping this country right here and now as well which is the jobs crisis. so, again, mr. speaker, i would say, let's agree to work towards common ground. we have laid out very well several times where differences are, but it's time for us to really work to transcend those differences and work in a bipartisan manner and see where we can come together. we've done it. we've done it in the house, on the trade agreement, we've done it in the house on the 3% withholding bill. we've done it in the house when it comes to the veteran hiring bill. we can do this. yes, it's not everything that

all of us want, and i share the gentleman's frustration. the gentleman's been here a lot longer than i have, but i will tell you i think the gentleman's career has been built on progress. so let's work towards progress again. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i didn't get an answer to my question, however. he's gotten an answer to his solve the problem issue. what he means by solving the problem is we have to deal with the sustainability of entitlement programs. . i have adopted that premise myself in speeches i have given on numerous occasions on this floor and in other floors around the country. what i'm asking him is does he also agree that proposition was adopted by all three of the four that we have discussed, does he also agree as mr. bernanke points out that revenues or taxes, however you want to call it, resources to pay for what we believe are priorities, for

instance the gentleman correctly believes we need to invest in our national security. i feel very strongly about that. for 30 years i have voted on behalf of the national security of this nation. to pay for it and to pursue weapons systems, personnel levels, strategies to assure our national security. so that i have no qualms with saying that is a priority. if it is a priority, if it is important, it is important to pay for it. paying for it is through revenues. now, if we don't pay for it, if we borrow for -- we are going to borrow over $1 trillion to protect our country. afghanistan, iraq, and other places around the world, but particularly those two, that's important. that's important to do. he and i agree. but i think it's important to pay for it not have my children or grandchildren pay for it who are going to have to pay for their security in their time. and if be-- we leave them only a

legacy of deep debt, they will not be able to do so. that is a immoral policy and fiscally irresponsible. we have to fix the problem. what you are talking about makes sustainable. demographics have changed. costs have changed. we have to make sustainable entitlements. does the gentleman agree that a component of the solution has to be dealing with revenues as well? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. we have always said, certainly. there needs to be more revenues. but we need to be focused on how we can have a sustainable growth in revenue flow and that's from a growing economy. the gentleman asked me before whether we have economists that will endorse our republican jobs creator agenda. and, yes, the speaker as he knows has issued a letter with 132 economists, listed on that letter, and i'm going to send it to the gentleman so he can be reminded yet again, that, yes,

there are plenty of economists who embrace the notion that if we take away the entitlements that washington has put in place, that we can see a growing economy and produce more revenues. ok. now, i would say to the gentleman about his assertion about fixing the problem. he's correct. we need more revenues. we believe we need more revenues. let's first see if we can fix the problem -- first if we can fix the problem because just paying for things without raising taxes -- with raising taxes doesn't fix the problem. we know the demographics of this country. we know 10,000 people every day turn 65 and become eligible for medicare. we know that medicare is supported by premiums and taxes paid in, and those revenues cover only a little over half the costs of the program. we know that that means every day come 10,000, you are 50% in the hole. you cannot tax your way out of that. you can't grow your way out of

that. you got to fix the problem. back to my original notion, we are the only ones that have put a real fix on the table to that problem. and so what the gentleman says is, no, no, no. we don't want to fix the problem, we want to tax people more until sometimes somewhere we come up with a solution to fix the problem. that's like throwing good money after bad and raising taxes on small businesspeople will get in the way of getting more revenues into washington because you are not going to spur the economy into a growth mode. so, again, mr. speaker, we have been over and over again for months. we know where our differences lie. let's come together. i would say keystone pipeline, again, the gentleman has a lot of support on his side for the unions in this country. they want to see the keystone pipeline built. 12,000 new jobs right away, almost 13,000 construction jobs. we've got manufacturing jobs,

spinoffs that will come from that. why can't we come together on jobs? so, again, we can do this. we really can. it's time for us to begin to work together towards productive end. let's get america back to work. get this economy growing again. and then maybe we can then tackle some of the bigger problems that have eluded us in this quest to try and accomplish it all that has failed this year. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we ought to come together on jobs and i would urge the gentleman to bring the president's jobs bill to the floor with such amendments, such changes, such improvements, such deletions as the gentleman feels necessary. the president put a jobs bill which every economist, every economist has said will grow the economy, will grow jobs, and it has been languishing in this house since september. while people are losing jobs. the good news is we had some

improvement in the economy. and by the way the recovery act worked as the gentleman knows. i want to comment on his going into deficits. as a result of the recovery act. as the gentleman knows and he voted for, george bush suggested $700 billion in unpaid spending to staunch the financial crisis brought on by the meltdown in wall street in september of 2008 when brush was president. he -- when president bush was president. he offered a bill. we didn't pay pore it. you and i both voted for it because we thought it was the responsible thing to do to stabilize the financial sector of this country. very unpopular bill but absolutely essential. so in terms of some eight months later confronted -- actually five months later, confronted with the deepest economic crisis since herber hoover, we --

herbert hoover, we acted. and the recovery act has worked. it was not as big as some asked it to be, but it created some two million jobs over the last 36 months. it has not been as robust because we lost eight million jobs. if you add three back, you lose eight, you haven't gotten to where you need to be. but i tell my friend that we ought to come together. we ought to reach agreement and balanced agreement. your side thinks when we talk about balance we talk about revenues. he's right. but when we talk about balance, we are also talking about fixing the problem. we are talking about a balanced deal. and i would urge my friend in these coming few days, few days that we have left, where we are apparently going to do either a c.r. or an omnibus appropriation bill, we were criticized greatly

for not doing every appropriation bill individually. you have an appropriation bill as the gentleman knows hasn't even passed the subcommittee much less full committee or the floor of the house. but we need to get those bills done because it will give certainty and confidence to the american people that we can work together. i'm hopeful that over the next few months -- few days, excuse me, we don't have a few months, a few days that we can, in fact, do that. i would urge my friend to let us keep the discipline of the see quester in everybody's mind because -- sequester in everybody's mind because we don't want that as an alternative but we want to have that as an alternative to people so we can give incentives to work together to summons the courage, to summon the judgment to reach an agreement which will get our country on the right track and give our citizens the confidence in their government that we wish they would have but they would only have it, if we do, as the gentleman suggests, come together and work

constructively towards a balanced package not only in terms of a fiscal package, but appropriations. let me say as well on appropriations, this side of the aisle did what your side of the aisle didn't do over the last four years when we were in charge, we made sure those bills passed. your bills at your levels that we agreed on and we congratulate you on sticking with the agreement we reached. and i will tell my friend we will do so again if you do not put in the riders that mr. boehner and your pledge to america said ought not to be in must-pass bills. you recall i'm sure that mr. boehner said we ought not to have extraneous controversial items which are not germane in bills that must pass. we ought to consider those on their merits. i will tell my friend that if you do that as the whip as i

have done on the two c.r.'s we passed or the mini bus we just passed, i will hetch you get those through. we will work together. america will have greater confidence. i'm prepared to yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i look forward to working with him over the next two weeks. i want to clarify no one's talking about removing the sequester. absolutely not. and the gentleman knows where i stand on that. i'm talking about making sure that we come together to find the cuts commensurate with those aimed at the defense department and in lieu of those cuts putting others in place so we can maintain our priority of the national defense of this country. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: i will assure the majority leader that we will maintain our flexibility on schedule and yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. for what reason does the gentleman from virginia rise? are there any requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mrs. emerson of missouri for today. mr. schilling of illinois for today. and mr. sessions of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask the house meet at monday next at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the digs egg knee -- designee for the majority leader. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i thank you for the time.

for folks who aren't accustomed to seeing what you and i just saw, i think that's quite a treat. in about what's it turn out to be, about 45 minutes we have had the majority leader for the republicans and the minority whip for the democrats lay out in intricate detail the differences that we are facing here as well as the commonal ities that we are facing here -- comalities that we are facing here. that hasn't happened in a while. it's a little more spirited today than it sometimes is as they come down on friday afternoon to share with each other what the schedule will be going forward. that's always a treat to see and i hope folks enjoy being able to be a part of that. what i have on my mind today is twofold. we are talking about jobs. all day, every day in this body we are talking about jobs. much like you saw the majority leader and minority whip lay out competing opinions, competing views of what america should

look like going forward. we have competing views about what creates american jobs. and i will tell you that, mr. speaker, we sometimes spend too much time talking about the creation side that we ignore the destruction side. it's absolutely about creating jobs but it's so much easier to stop killing jobs. destroying jobs should be something we agree today should never happen. should be something that we say day in and day out we are not going to let happen. and that's the case as we talk about energy independence. energy independence. i'm going to quote my georgia colleague, jimmy carter, mr. speaker. he was giving a speech in 1979, he said, in a little more than two decades we have gone from the position of energy independence to one in which

almost half of the oil we use comes from foreign countries. at prices that are going through the roof. sound familiar? mr. speaker, does it sound familiar? this was a speech given in 1979. in little more than two decades we have gone from position of energy independence to one in which half the oil we use comes from foreign countries at prices that are going through the roof. . i tell you what else, my georgia colleague, president carter said. i am tonight, in his 16979 speech, setting a goal -- 1979 speech, setting a goal for the energy policy of the united states. beginning this moment, he said, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977. never. hear that. the speech given in 1979 by the president who created the

department of energy, who's sole mission was to wean -- whose sole mission was to wean us off foreign oil, meet energy needs, not because of jobs but because of national security, the president said, beginning at this moment the nation will not use more foreign oil than we did in 1977. never. well, sadly that has not come to fruition and we will talk a little bit more why that is. quoting, again, from president jimmy carter. from now on every new addition to our demand for energy will be from our own production and our own conservation. the generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks. folks, this is president jimmy

carter. i would argue one of the more liberal presidents that we've had in our lifetime from the great state of georgia. i'm going to be one of the most conservative members that we have in this u.s. house of representatives, and i agree with absolutely everything he said. i was 9 years old when he said it. 9 years old when he said it. never use more foreign oil than we use at this moment in 1977, every new demand for domestic energy will come from domestic energy production. who disagrees with that? who disagrees with one of most forward-thinking, energy independent presidents we've had? who disagrees? let's move forward. let's look at u.s. oil consumption. 1973 to 2004 is the numbers i brought down today. this top line, u.s. oil

consumption. u.s. oil consumption. here we are in 1979 when the president was giving his speech. all the new demand, he said, will come from u.s. energy supplies. red line's oil imports. red line is the amount of oil we are bringing in from overseas. here's the president's speech in 1979. here's that peak year in 1977. he was giving the speech in 1979, but he said, let's look at 1977, a peak year for our imports across the globe. we will never import that much oil again. well, look out there. look right out there. 1996, 1997, 1998 through today, we absolutely are and why? and why? the why is because of u.s. oil production. you know, we talk and, again, you saw it with the majority

leader and the minority whip when they were talking about their competing directions for america and the minority leader asked, name one economist who will tell you that reducing regulation creates jobs. that was an honest question. name one economist who agrees that reducing government regulation creates jobs. folks, look at the gulf of mexico. look at the gulf of mexico. mr. speaker, you know as i do as you are from that part of the world that america's largest shallow water oil drilling company declared bankruptcy in the midst of some of the highest cost per barrel of oil that the world has ever seen. why? why, mr. speaker, would a u.s. oil producer, the largest in the country, declare bankruptcy

when the price that we're getting for a barrel of oil is among the highest in world history? i give you the answer. because the united states government wouldn't give them a single permit to drill. hear that. more oil imports from around the world than ever before in american history focus on both sides of the aisle on creating jobs and the largest shallow water oil producer in america goes out of business because the american government won't give them permits. tell me who believe, mr. speaker, that that didn't cost jobs, that that regulatory decision to refuse to allow americans to drill for american oil in american waters as they have for decades, who believes that didn't cost us a job?

now, good news. those rigs, those rigs that we would have been using to drill for american oil, they're not being moth balled. they've just gone overseas to drill for foreign oil that will then be able to pay top dollar to get back in america. folks, why? why? this is an energy independence issue, and it is a jobs issue, and it is a national security issue. look back. 1980, after president jimmy carter's speech that says we will never import more oil, importing here six million, almost seven million barrels a day. fast forward to 2008, that number has almost doubled to 13 million. it's almost doubled to 13 million. folks, we're rich with energy in this country. mr. speaker, you know as i do we have been blessed.

there are countries around this world that don't have access to fresh water. we do. there are countries around this world that don't have access to beaches and to mountains and to waterways and we do. there are countries around this globe that don't have access to energy, but we do. mr. speaker, who is it, who decides that we can't harness u.s. energy? who is it? is it some sort of natural law of nature that says we can't harness u.s. energy? no. it's the folks who sit in these chairs. it's the folks who sit in these chairs day in and day out who decide, no, no, you cannot harness american energy. you know where you ought to get your energy? get it from overseas. get it from overseas. now you ask, why do we got to go overseas to get our energy? something we don't talk about when we talk about free trade.

every single nation that america has a free trade agreement with we have a surplus. we talk, mr. speaker, about the trade deficit that we have with the world. you heard it. you hear it all the time. a trade deficit that we have with the world. why? it's energy. it's importing energy that creates a trade deficit. those jobs we talk about, manufacturing jobs, good, high-paying manufacturing jobs, everybody's district in the country, we have a trade surplus with every single nation with which we have a free trade agreement. what we don't have is an energy surplus. these are the top oil producing countries in the world. top oil producing countries in the world. the green line is the former soviet union. it changes over to russia. you see it's at the top. even as we enter 2010, this beige line is saudi arabia. it is also up there at the top as we enter 2010. down here you see the next biggest oil producers.

china in purple and iran in blue. you tell us if that's who you want us to import our energy resources from. and here in the red is the united states of america. this is production in millions of barrels per day. this line should be going up. this line should be going up and this line is going down and the question is why. why? look again at the seats in this room, mr. speaker. look again to the policymakers in this country. bill after bill after bill we have passed in this chamber, mr. speaker, that would free up the american energy production that would create jobs not tomorrow, not a week from tomorrow, not a year from tomorrow but today that would create jobs today and those bills lange wish in the senate. -- languish in the senate. do not tell me that regulations don't impact jobs. asking the question, does an

economist agree that regulation removal would create jobs? folks, we don't need an economist. we need any mom or dad in the country. we could get a sixth grader to come and say what's going to happen if regulations put people out of business, removing those regulations will let them come back in. largest oil producing countries in the world -- russia, saudi arabia, iran and china. and the united states of america. we're in good company. we are in good company, mr. speaker. the top five oil producing countries in the world but we're going down while every other country is going up. we are producing less with folks with whom we have fundamental disagreements about a world view, their production goes up. so who do we get our oil from, mr. speaker? are we able to find enough oil in this global market to buy only from our friends? no, we do not. we buy from anybody who will

sell to us, and i don't need to speculate on what they do with the dollars we give them. i think we all have suspicions of our own. this chart, mr. speaker, is american oil production, u.s. field production of crude oil. we had a slow start back in the 1800's. we didn't know how powerful it was going to be. i am not going to fault us for that. we started to sort out the technology, mr. speaker. you see that spike running up in the 1970's when president carter was giving his speech. in fact, there's a little jog in the chart here, mr. speaker. you can't see it. but oil production went down and jimmy carter gave a speech. he said, we are going to find domestic sources for american energy. we are not going to sell our future away to the world for the price of a barrel of oil. we are going to do it ourselves, and so you see us uptick. president carter, you know,

he's known for oil. oil embargos, this energy speech. but really it's solar energy for which i would say i remember president carter most fondly. he began this huge push for alternative sources of energy. and he was focused on that throughout this time, but his commitment to energy independence was every bit as large as his commitment to solar energy and we began to produce more oil. now, follow that line, mr. speaker, from 1990 straight down through 2010. straight down. it's not that we're not blessed with energy, mr. speaker. it's that we're also blessed -- i use the word loosely -- with a congress that believes or at least believe before this freshman class got here, that they're the smartest folks in the room and if only the rest of america will do what they want them to do they'll be

better off. mr. speaker, the decisions in my community about what makes the families in my community better off are made around the family dinner table, not 640 miles away in washington, d.c. the decisions about how to make ends meet are made around that dinner table, not 640 miles away in washington, d.c. the decisions about the environment, about transportation and about jobs are happening at that local level. until we destroy that opportunity from washington, d.c., we have the oil. we could turn this chart around today, but reglatorily, we won't allow that to happen. next time, mr. speaker, someone talks about a jobs proposal, i hope you'll direct them to jobs.gop.gov because you know as i know, mr. speaker, at jobs.gop.gov you will find a list of more than 20 pieces of legislation that we have passed

in this chamber that sit idle in the senate that will create jobs again, not tomorrow, not next year but today. today. where's an economist that believes reducing regulation creates jobs? folks, that's not the question. the question is, is there a family in america that doesn't know for a fact that reducing regulations creates jobs? we're not talking about thwarting clean water, folks. i drink out of the same spigot everybody else does. i am not talking about thwarting clean air. i sniff the same air that everybody else does. we are not talking about the public safety issues. we are talking about national security. when we look at this chart, mr. speaker, that talks about the nations that produce oil, the oil that we need to run this country -- russia, saudi

arabia, iran and china. is there an environmental issue when it comes to energy production? you bet there is. you bet there is. but i propose this, mr. speaker, give us energy independence, give us energy independence in this country, mr. speaker, by how whatever means necessary, by hook, by crook, you drill, you dig, you put the solar panels on the roof. do whatever you have to do. give us energy independence today. . i'll be glad to have the discussion that the president from my great state of georgia started in the late 1970's about having enough alternative energy sources to fund this country. folks, who doesn't, who doesn't love green? green's wonderful. i saw a study the other day says it's the most soothing color for children. green's wonderful. green's not what we get when we have to bargain with russia,

with saudi arabia, with china, and with iran. to get the lifeblood that keeps the american economy going. green is not what we get. folks, drill, dig, do whatever you have to today a cheeve energy independence. tsh ---achieve energy independence. to reduce this imported number. twice as much oil being imported today as we were when president carltser gave a speech that -- carter gave a speech that it would never rise again. we can do it, mr. speaker. we are americans. we are the greatest engineers on this planet. we have the hardest working work force on this planet. we have folks who are willing to save and sacrifice like nobody else on this planet. we can do it. the question is, mr. speaker, are we in the u.s. house in the united states senate? that at 16 pennsylvania avenue and the -- 1600 pennsylvania

avenue and the senate are we going to free the american people to pursue that goal? i came to this congress about freedom. i don't actually view my job as the job of being the smartest person in the room. i view my job as protecting the freedom of folks back home because if you have not been down to the 7th district of georgia, mr. speaker, i'll tell you are going to find some of the smartest folks in the land. it's the north metro suburbs of atlanta. and folks ruin this country from there with the decisions they make every day of the week. we don't need a federal law that tells you whether to buy a snickers or twix. i'm sure we could have a spirited debate about that here in this chamber, but we don't need a law to do it because folks make that decision every day. are there enough peanuts in snickers, mr. speaker? do you think we should have them ad some more? those are the kinds of things we decide we are going to regulate out of this body in the name of making everybody happy.

oh, the children. the children when they get their trick or treat bags on halloween, that have the mini snickers in there, how much happier would they be if each had eight peanuts instead of seven. they would be so much happy -- happier. it would help peanut farmers in georgia. we should regulate that from washington, d.c. no. because families regulate that. if you don't like the peanuts on the snickers, you are going to get a payday bar. if there's not enough peanuts in payday, you are going to go on to the next one. we as americans, mr. speaker, not as congressmen, as americans we sort out these decisions 1,000 times a day. 1,000 times a day. how do we get more freedom then, mr. speaker, back into individuals' hands? we are talking about jobs and that's, again, energy independence. it's a national security issue. it should be the focus of

everything we do in this house because it's a national security issue. if you don't believe we would make different foreign policy decisions, mr. speaker, if we were not dependent on people who hate us, to fuel this economy with their oil, i'd have to disagree, because i'm absolutely certain of it. i'm certain of it. we would make better foreign policy decisions if we, if we produced our own energy resources and we can. we are the saudi arabia of coal for pete's sakes. this body over the past several years been trying to regulate right out of existence? coal, the one resource that we have in abundance more than anyone else on the planet. and, folks in their wisdom have decided that it would be better not to harvest our coal and instead to import oil from people who hate us. folks, that's not freedom. that's decisionmaking going on right here and i promise you we'll get it right in the

seventh district of georgia more often than not. when folks believe they are the brightest people in the room, they start to make mistakes. that brings me to the fair tax. oh, mr. speaker, you know the fair tax is a tax bill. but at its heart it's a freedom bill. what the fair tax is, mr. speaker, if you haven't looked at it recently, it's a fundamental change in the way we tax america. today we tax income. and of course the power to tax is the power to destroy. the power to tax, the power to destroy. i ask young people when i go to schools to speak, i say who wants to come to work for me? i'm going to work you hard. i'm going to work you long. i'm going to get you $10 an hour. $10 an hour. i'll get a couple hands go up. apparently $10 an hour is not as much today as it was back in my day. i would have jumped at that. i get hands that go up. then i say but i'm going to have to tax you $9 of that so you are only going to be able to take home $1.

now who wants to work long hours for me? all the hands go down. the power to tax productivity is the power to destroy productivity. the power to tax income is the power to destroy income. why? why do we want to destroy that that makes this country great? so the fair tax shifts that paradigm. instead of taxing what people produce, we want to tax what people consume. a consumption tax. you have all seen it. it's in your sales tax back home in your state. you get taxed on what you consume. we could do it. we could do it. i'll tell you the fair tax's jobs program because when we stop taxing productivity we get more of it. that creates jobs. i tell you the fair tax is about transparency. you know, mr. speaker, the payroll tax,.3 cents out of

every dollar that comes out of your paycheck, mr. speaker, that fica line you see, 7.65% comes from the employee, the other 7.65 is hidden as an employer tax, but it's a 15.3% payroll tax, did you know, mr. speaker, that 80% of american families pay more in the payroll tax than they do in the income tax. 80% of american families pay more in the payroll tax than they do in the income tax. now, i just got back from thanksgiving. i've got doctors in my family. i've got teachers in my 235e78 family. i've got all sorts of folks i can assure you, mr. speaker, i got an earful throughout the entire thanksgiving dinner. it was more a three-day festival for me. different sides of family coming into town and i got lots of good advice about how we should do things differently up here. not one person mentioned the payroll tax. no the income tax was a hot topic. hot topic. but nobody mentioned the payroll tax, and it's the biggest tax

that 80% of americans pay. why? because the payroll tax is hidden in every single paycheck that you get. you don't feel it. the government gets its share first. you get your share second. you don't feel it unless, mr. speaker, you are one of the self-employed folks in america. and instead of paying the 15.3 payroll tax, you pay the equivalent 15.3% self-employment tax, then you feel the bite of that tax each day. you know that's the biggest tax you pay. the fair tax instead of allowing all those taxes to be hidden, hidden in business taxes, income tax, payroll taxes separate it out so you don't feel the pain. the fair tax takes your entire federal tax burden and sticks it into one rate. a sales tax on everything that you buy. one rate. that rate would have to be 23%. that's a big number. 23% is what the sales tax rate,

the payroll tax -- the fair tax rate would need to be in order to replace federal income taxes on businesses, on individuals, federal payroll taxes on businesses, on individuals. the gift tax, the death tax, the capital gains tax, the dividend tax, all of those federal taxes on income, the fair tax could replace them all with a 23% personal consumption tax there at the cash register. and you'd see it, mr. speaker. can you imagine? today i can just raise and excise tax here, raise a quarter percent of an income tax here, i can do lots of funny math as they like to do in washington, d.c., because folks can't feel the pain. they always think that's not going to tax me. it's going to tax somebody else. i vote yes because it's going to tax him instead of me. the fair tax puts us all in the same boat and lets us see how much the united states government costs us. i'm a cost conscious shopper, mr. speaker. i brought a marker down here

with me today in case i had to write big red marks. this was free with rebates for this marker. dollars and cents matter. we make different decisions in our personal purchasing life when we experience those costs. transparency lets you know how much your government is costing you. does everybody want a free marketer marker? yes, does everybody want to pay the $6.95 it would have been? i think not. puts the entire cost of government out where you can see it. most importantly the fair tax is about individual freedom. folks, have you thought about how the tax code manipulates your life? it doesn't matter whether you sit on the far right over here with the republicans. you sit on the far left over there with democrats, sometimes something happens when you show up in washington, d.c., and you do, you believe you are the smartest person in the room. everybody tells you how wonderful you are. you think your ideas are so great, and you decide, you know what, i should reward people for

doing this behavior and i should punish them from doing that behavior. if i do it, they'll be happier and america will be better. what am i going to do? i'm going to put a tax on gasoline because i don't want people driving to work. that's bad. and then i'm going to put a tax credit on electric vehicles, right? because that's green. we are talking about green earlier, mr. speaker. someone put a tax credit on electric vehicles. i'm going to punish those people who buy oil at a community gas station and reward those people who go out and buy these $60,000, $70,000 vehicles. i don't think that's good tax policy, but we have the power to do that. we can manipulate your we behavior -- your behavior every day of the week by changing how the tax code touches your pocketbook. i was talking about that the electric vehicle tax credit. that wasn't just an example. that wasn't just something i made up. do you remember when the president passed, this president passed his energy bill? it included in it a tax credit,

$6,500, for everyone who would go out and buy an electric vehicle. again, the volt was not on the market at the time. and the only electric vehicles out there in the $80,000, $90,000 range, but americans are industrious which is why if you leave america to americans we are going to be fine. but americans are industrious and what they found out was if they put brake lights on their golf cart, side view mirrors, some good seat belts up front, headlights, and windshield wipers, that the department of transportation would certify that golf cart as a road ready vehicle and they could get the $6,500 tax credit. huh. turns out you can't buy an american made government cart for $6,500. our golf carts are more expensive than that. but our friends in china, not only are they willing to share their oil with us, guess what? they are willing to share their golf carts with us, too. it turned out at the end of tax

year 2009 americans were literally standing in line for a virks, n. number for a chinese golf cart so they could claim this tax credit. free golf carts. did anybody get one? did you get that free golf cart? don't tell me if you did. i know some folks who did. i'm not proud of it. i know some folks who did. free golf carts for all from the united states tax code. folks, when we bring all that power and authority here, it gives us the power to manipulate your life and we don't always manipulate it for the powers of good. and i would tell you even when we are trying to manipulate it for the powers of good as the president was trying to manipulate it for the powers of good in his energy bill, we run afoul, we run afoul. why do we need to pay people to engage in behavior? we make those decisions each and every day. the fair tax abolishes the income tax code. so that no longer can people who think they are the smartest person in the room in washington tell you how to live your life. that's not just a crazy

conservative republican idea. no. we have that idea from folks on the other side of the aisle, too. let me quote president barack obama. you got too many companies ending up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or what their factories produce. and that puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. you were here, mr. speaker, when the minority whip asked, is there any economist who believes that regulations destroy jobs or that removing regulations would create jobs? you don't need an economist. we've got the president of the united states. too many companies make decisions based on what their tax director says, based on tax regulation instead of what their engineer designs or what their factories produce. and that puts our entire economy

at a disadvantage. president barack obama. we'll go more. we need to make america the best place on earth to do business. a barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. . the president of the united states -- it is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. we can do that. we don't need world approval. we don't need to shop that around for a decade. we could do that here and we have legislation drafted to make it so. i'll quote the senate majority leader, harry reid, our tax system is broken and it needs

to be fixed. you know, i probably could have quoted every american. i don't think that anyone disagrees with that. where are the ideas to fix it? i tell you, they are here in this house, mr. speaker. the fair tax, personal consumption tax i'm talking about, has more co-sponsors on it, more members of congress who added their name to the bill and said i want to be part of that, more co-sponsors than any fundamental tax reform legislation in either the house or the senate. it has the most members in both bodies. we have proposals to fix it. let me quote house minority leader nancy pelosi. any tax reform and closing of loopholes which is really important for us to do as a sense of fairness must also reduce the deficit. the minority leader knows we got to cut out these loopholes, these tax breaks, these deductions, these exemptions. we hear that down here, mr.

speaker. and you heard me go on it in the rules committee. folks come down here and say, oh, i hate this tax break or i hate that tax break. oh, this loophole is unfair or that loophole is unfair. folks, every loophole is unfair. don't pick on the oil companies because you don't like oil companies. don't pick on solar panel companies because you don't like solar panel companies. everything that advantages your business over another business is unfair. everything that advantages your family over another family is unfair. there is no secret spots that we go here in the congress to get money to pay our bills. there's not one. no secret spot. it comes out of american taxpayers' pockets. every penny. and when you cut a special break to a special interest, only one of two things is going to happen. they're going to pay less so either you, the american

taxpayer, is paying more, mr. speaker, or we, collective america, are borrowing more and passing that bill on to our children and grandchildren. why? why do we give the special tax breaks and the loopholes? who elected us, mr. speaker, to decide who wins and who loses? my people sent me here to protect their freedom. they're going to decide who wins and who loses by the sweat of their brow and the power of their ideas. they didn't send me here to choose. the tax code is not supposed to be about picking winners and losers. it's supposed to be about collecting whatever revenue there is that we need to run this country. you can't run a country for nothing. i'm not a guy who says, let's abolish all taxes all the time. we have a social contract in this country and we have to collect dollars to pay for national defense. we have to collect dollars to pay for homeland security. but we don't need to dispense

favors from the tax code. let me tell you, and i challenge you, mr. speaker, to help me challenge our colleagues, if you want a special favor for that special interest in your district, don't hide it with the tax code. bring it down here as a spending bill. let's debate it. instead of saying, oh, my special interest back home, i want to give you a 50% tax break. instead of that, why not come to the house floor and say, hey, why don't i write you a check for a 50% of your tax bill? that's all if is. every single tax break, every single tax loophole, deduction, exemption, on and on, we call it part of the tax code. it's just the government writing you a check. folks, we're broke. $15 trillion in debt that we're passing on to our children and grandchildren. we can't write those checks. the fair tax does away with that. all the exemptions makes the tax code transparents for folks

to understand. now, one of the things i hear these days in this tough economic time, and it is a tough economic time, folks say, rob, if we had a consumption tax that you are proposing, people are consuming less in these tough times so we are not going to have money to run the government. you're absolutely right. we are consuming less in these tough times. i encourage you to consume less. tighten that belt. make those decisions. tighten it as far as you can. saving is the virtue. for far too long we celebrated consumption as the virtue. we have a chance right now, and it's only right now, mr. speaker. we haven't had this chance in almost 100 years. america used to produce what the rest of the world wanted. america used to be the exporting giant that sent the world the goods that it needed and the middle class prospered

as a result. we've gotten out of that habit. we've gotten out of the production business. we're putting more businesses out of business every day with the regulations we talked about earlier. now, we're an importing business. now, we're in the borrowing business, but, mr. speaker, we have a once in the lifetime opportunity -- once-in-a-lifetime time route now. why? we have millions of chinese consumers coming online today and they want what we make. there are a billion new indian middle-class consumers coming online today and they want what we make. we do not have to buy everything from the world. we can produce everything for the world. consumption is not to be celebrated. production is to be celebrated, which is why i want to take the tax off production and put it on consumption. this chart represents -- the blue is personal consumption through the years.

the last decade. the red is personal income. and what you'll see is the red line drops below the blue line in bad times. and above the blue line in good times. what does that mean? the red line is income. the blue line is consumption. yes, it's true that in bad economic times we consume less. but guess what? we earn even less than that. is there less personal consumption going on today? there is. folks don't have jobs. when you tax income you tax one thing and one thing only and that's the production that you had today. when you tax consumption, you tax perhaps production from today, also savings from yesterday and also borrowing from tomorrow. it's a much more stable income stream for the government. let me tell you why that is important. mr. speaker, you know we've

only been in this house 11 months now. part of the biggest freshman class this body has seen in a generation. but in just this period of time we have learned that it's hard to cut spending, hard to find agreement. takes 218 votes to cut spending. i'm having a hard time finding those 208 votes on programs i want to eliminate. it's hard. but because income drops lower in tough economic times in consumption and because income rises higher in good economic times than consumption, what happens in the bad times because we have an income tax we end up borrowing more to pay our bills and in the good times when we have a surplus, how much did we save? do you remember? how much did we save to save for a rainy day during the three years of the surplus in the 1990's? it was zero. we spent some measure. boy, did we spend. by we, mr. speaker, i know you weren't here and i wasn't here but, boy, did this congress

spend. in good times if you send the congress the money you are going to spend it. don't send it. the consumption tax flattens out the volatility of the tax receipts in this country so that in bad times we don't have to borrow as much and in good times we don't spend as much. that's important because that gets multiplied over congress after congress and congress after congress. you know, the fair tax isn't some sort of amazing record-breaking idea. it just says, get the government out of the way. you know, when this republic was founded, the only way we funded this government was through consumption. that was the only tax we had. a consumption tax. that's how we funded the government. because our founding fathers said, if you have enough money to import china from china and silver from india, then you have enough money to help to keep this country afloat. if you have enough money to

spend big you have enough money to pay taxes big. but let's talk about the individual american family for a moment. you know, back when the income tax code started in the first part of the 20th century, the tax code was 400 pages long. 400 pages long. now, i read a lot of legislation around here, mr. speaker, as you do, and 400 pages is a lot of pages to get through but i can sort that out. by world war ii, 1945, the tax code was 8,000 pages long. grew 20-fold in the first part of the century. by 1984 it was 26,000 pages long. mr. speaker, we're getting past the amount of pages that i can digest. we're getting past the amount of pages that i can sort out on my own. i am having to hire professional staff like douglas here, in order to sort all of this tax code. that was 1984. 26,000 pages. 2004, 60,000 pages.

2011, 72,000 pages. mr. speaker, who is it? which is that american family that has so much extra time on their hands today that they've sorted through 72,000 pages of tax code to figure out what their tax bill is? it makes a criminal out of all of this. if you see the article in "money" magazine. they brought in 20 different tax preparers. gave them middle-class incomes and deductions. of 20 different tax preparers who looked at this one family's circumstances, how many of them do you think came up with the same answer? how many of them came up with the same tax bill? zero. 20 different tax preparers, 20 different answers about what this middle-class american family would owe. you can't sort through 72,000 pages. and why? this is the thing about the fair tax, mr. speaker. we've inherited this tax code.

this congress has inherited this tax code from those who have gone before us, but we don't have to keep it. that's what's so great about america. we get to choose. we get to decide. we could erase the tax code today. instead of 72,000 pages, we can have this. we can have a blank page and we could begin anew to decide what we want the american tax code to look like. folks, i don't mind paying taxes. i just don't want to pay someone to help me pay the taxes. i don't mind paying taxes, but i don't want to be at risk for getting arrested because i didn't take the time to sort it out. folks, if you have to pay the government, if the government has to get the money before your family gets the money, why can't we make it easy? making it easy is about the american family. but making it easy also has an

impact on jobs. you know, don't think for a minute that we don't live in a global economy. that hasn't always been true. in the 1970's, we were a little more insular. we could make different choices. today money can leave this country by the click of a mouse. one click of a mouse and you can transfer $1 trillion from here to zurich, and guess what, the big c.e.o.'s can get on their plane and they can fly to zurich too. and guess what, the folks in zurich, they want ex-jobs too. everything that has to -- they want jobs too. everything that has to do with the prosperity of this country can get up and leave except for the american worker. you and i are here. you and i aren't going anywhere. so we are invested in making sure that those people who provide the jobs for us stay here too. look at the average effective tax rates. i have other charts that talks

about the statutory rate. the statutory rates is the single highest stasmtory rate in the world. you can create a company with a lick of the mouse. you can move your trillions with the click of a mouse. where are you going to move them? you are going to move them with the highest tax rate in the world, like america does, or the lowest? mr. speaker, as the minority whip said, we don't need an economist to figure it out. if somebody is taxing here and somebody is taxing here the money will go to the low tax jurisdiction. that's the marginal tax rate. look at the effective tax rate because you might be thinking, rob, you just told me about all of the loopholes and the exemptions and credits. i bet that's how america stays competitive. we just give away these freebies and --