this, and a lot of this is something where lawmakers are closer to the people, as i think some of them might have a better sales of where people are. host: bernie becker, think you for being here. tomorrow we continue our weekly series looking at a recent magazine article. tomorrow is "nudge not." he talks about the pay girl economic theory -- behavioral economic theory and whether or not that has backfired on the obama administration. thank you for watching today. we will be back tomorrow. er. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 6, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. watt bubsks for -- mr. walberg, for five minutes. mr. walberg: consumers energy founder, foote and jirus,

secured a contract. what became an illumination of a dozen streetlights meant change, growth and service. today, consumers energy delivers energy and natural gas to 6.8 million of michigan's 10 million wezz dents in all 68 counties of the state's lower peninsula. for the past 125 years, consumers energy has operated under the timeless principle, provide customers with safe, reliable and affordable energy service. this principle has played an integral role in improving the qual of life for generations of michigan residents. it also has been responsible for the growth of businesses and industries which provide jobs for millions of the state's residents. since its beginning in 1886, the goal of consumers energy was to deliver power to homes and businesses in cities, towns and villages and even the most

rural areas. in 1927, the company installed michigan's first rural powerline, the seven-mile mason-dansville line, thereby bringing power to rural farms for the first time. today, consumers energy continues a proud tradition as an industry and community leader. in celebration of its milestone anniversary, the company will award 125,000 dollars each to 10 communities for a total of $1.25 million for programs and services that will strengthen those communities and touch the lives of thousands of our citizens. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing consumers energy's 125th anniversary and wishing them continued growth and success in the future. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr.

blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. there was a tough article in the sunday, december 4, "new york times" entitled, how the food industry eats your kids' lunch. this has serious consequences for the 32 million children who rely on school lunches and often the breakfast program as well. unfortunately, when 1/3 of our children of school age, 6 to 19, are overweight or obese, this matters. unfortunately, there's no denying that the institutional and political forces combine to favor giving our kids unhealthy food. it doesn't just shortchange the children and their families with huge medical costs in the future from obesity, from diabetes and other problems, it also poses problems for local farmers and the local economy.

the good news is that we know how to fix this. without help from the federal government or despite the federal government, there are areas where the local governments are leading. in 2001 there was only six programs that was farm-to-school, providing healthy produce and fruit that found its ways in the schools. there are now more than 2,300 programs involving more than 10,000 schools across the country. on this house floor i have referenced pilot project that i think is model in abernathy school in portland, oregon, that i'm privileged to represent, but there are dozens more in my community. 160 he hadible gardens around the country -- edible gardens around the country. california led the way with special payments that are made to local school districts to provide opportunities to

purchase local fruits and vegetables. it's been followed by similar programs in d.c. and maine. now, this doesn't just deal with the health of kids. it also deals with the health of local economies. when you are able to buy fresh fruits and vegetables locally and put that into the schools, it has a significant multiplier effect. each dollar there actually has more economic impact than a dollar that was spent on infrastructure or a dollar that would be spent on food stamps. it's one of the most valuable economic impact generators. almost $2 of economic impact for each $1 invested, according to a study from ecotrust. let's accept the challenge to try and help improve this process. there are some additional steps that can be taken locally. don't build or remodel schools

that don't have kitchens. it's simple but it's more cost-effective to do it when you're constructing or remodeling than if you'd have to come back later. let's hold members of congress accountable. last month we once again on the floor of the house reaffirmed the fact that pizza dough with a little bit of tomato sauce is a vegetable. maybe people in the course of this next year when the politicians are going to be out campaigning, maybe able to pin them down as to whether or not they believe pizza is a vegetable and whether they will act to override that outrage. it's also important to expand the usda pilot project that's going to be starting next month in florida, in michigan. let's see if we can give other states the opportunity for cash

instead of commodities to be able to purchase these local products. this will give opportunities for our school districts to strengthen the local partnerships, to be able to give kids healthy food, to be able to model behaviors that are important, and most important, for the federal government to realign its interest away from large agri business and in favor of the health of our children. now, in the midst of the rubble of the so-called supercommittee, there was some good that came out of it. one good element was that there was not a secret sort of farm bill that was embedded that would have denied us the opportunity this year to reform farm legislation. one of the most simple things we can do is to move commodity payments from large agri business, put it in the hands

of local schools, local farmers to be able to improve the health of our children and our local economy. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, thanksgiving is over and christmas is just around the corner. and all throughout america families will gather to celebrate the traditions and festivities and be together, celebrate faith, but there are some american families that won't have their entire family with them this year. there will be an empty chair at their table. that's because their loved one serves in the united states military in lands throughout the world. war christmas is not new. many warriors are still on call, still on duty serving america. but there is a way to connect with our troops throughout the

world and it's a project that we are involved in in southeast texas through the red cross and operation interdependence. and here's how it works, it's a way of having young kids, children, school-age children, connect with troops not only in our war zone but other places in the world where our troops are serving america. and it started several years ago when i had the opportunity to go see our troops in the middle east about this time of the year, and before i left my staff came up with the idea that maybe i should take some christmas cards and holiday cards to our troops that were serving overseas. and so they did all the work and they were able to get school teachers to get their keds to volunteer to make a -- kids to volunteer to make hand-made christmas cards and i took about 6,000 of those handmade cards by third, fourth and fifth grades overseas.

i stopped off in germany where our wounded warriors are taken before they are brought back to the united states. and i distributed those cards not only in the middle east but to our froops and even our nato troops in land stall airbase. -- landstahl airbase. i checked a couple bags but i took one bag on the plane with me. it was a night flight flying overnight and showing up in the daytime and i started going through one of these suitcases that had all of these cards in it and the person next to me asked what i was doing. he wanted to look at them. he was passing them around. before i knew it these cards were up and down the aisles in that plane and i could hear sobbing or a little fare and emotion from some of the -- tear and emotion from some of the passengers on the planes reading the cards from school kids connecting with our troops

overseas. when i got -- come through the military base some of our troops who were wounded, they opened the cards and they wanted the nurses to put the cards on the wall. and even troops from foreign countries that were nato troops that were there had those cards that were made from american youth. madam speaker, there's something about a warrior from the united states opening up a handmade christmas card from some kid in the united states. at that moment the darkness of war seems to disappear because of the brightness of a child. i've had the opportunity to do this now five years, had these cards made by kids in southeast texas. i say i've had the opportunity. i don't do the work. my staff does the work along with chambers of congress and teachers. everybody volunteers. when my staff does the work, it's not during government hours. it's after work.

it's on the weekend, planning and getting these cards -- from throughout southeast texas. and every year the number of cards that are either taken or shipped gets more. first year was 6,000. next year, 10,000 christmas cards were shipped overseas. the third year, 16,000 cards. and, madam speaker, this year kids from southeast texas are shipping to our troops overseas, 35,000 handmade cards, wishing them well, giving them christmas greetings, saying some of the most awesome things that only third, fourth and fifth graders could do. so i want to thank those kids. i want to thank ricky wheeler and the chamber of commerce in baytown. i want to thank the high schools. horse man junior high. highland elementary. i want to thank those teachers. god bless those teachers who had these kids volunteer to make cards for the volunteers

overseas who won't be home for christmas because there's an empty chair at the christmas table where that soldier, that warrior, that sailor, that airman is not there because they're representing the united states in lands far, far away. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to speak in support of computer science education week which started this past sunday, december 4, 2011, and runs through saturday, december 10. this week-long celebration of the teaching and learning of computer science is a call to share information and host activities that will elevate computer science education for children at all levels. in my district in colorado, the computing achievements of 20 young women will be celebrated for the colorado affiliate of the aspirations in computing award on the campus of the university of colorado at boulder. on friday, representatives of

computer science education week and the computer science teachers association will be honored at the white house as champions of change which is part of president obama's winning the future initiative. today in harlem, california, -- sorry, today in harlem, new york, a company is launching a new national initiative, tech girls rock, in collaboration with the boys and girls club of america. they will learn website development. on marking this occasion of the week by talking to you about computer science education and urging all my colleagues in the house to support legislation i introduced earlier this year, the computer science education act, h.r. 3014. computing and information technology is transforming our world, thriving innovation, leading to entirely multibillion dollar industries, transforming how we live and how we work for the better. . it prepares students for jobs of the future by engaging -- and

preparing them for careers in high-paying occupations. but our education system is not currently producing enough graduates in computing, sciences, and i.t. fields to meet the growing needs of the industry. in fact, the current pipeline of computing graduates will only fill 52% of the projected jobs. the other 48% will have to be filled elsewhere in the world or go unfilled. if the u.s. is to continue and discover and develop the innovations that have created new industries and transformed others we need to ensure a healthy science work force. women and many minority groups are currently underrepresented under computing and i.t. professionals, as well as students depriving the nation of a potentially skilled work force and innovation that results from a diverse team. if we don't address the issues causing too few students to take computer science education classes in kindergarten through 1th grade as well as college, our pipeline and our nation's future will be compromised. that's why in't duesed the act

to help students learn the computing skills to prevent technology needed to go and drive our technology. i look forward to working with my colleagues to include 24 piece of legislation. computer science education week, this week, was established in 2009 by the computing in the core collation to honor grace murray hopper, a pioneer in computer science, who engineered a new programming lanwlang, delayed a foundation for many advances in computer science from the late 1940's to the 1970's. the u.s. house of representatives has recognized computer science education week in the second week of december in the past two years. computer science education week is a collaborative activity in the computing of the core, nonpartisan advocacy coalition. its core partners includes include microsoft, google, the national center for women and information technology which is based in my district in colorado.

ieee computer society, the computer roimp association, the could ledge board, and many, many others. i encourage my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the importance of computer science for our future by recognizing computer science education week this week. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, topping the list of unfinished business this year is the impending provision of two closely related crises, the expiration of the payroll tax, and the acceleration of social security's bankruptcy. last year congress voted for a payroll tax cut that averaging roughly 1,000 for every working family in america. as warned, it failed to stimulate economic growth and it accelerated the collapse of the social security system, but as

promised it threw every working family a vital life line in very tough economic times. we need to meet three conflicting objectives. we need to continue the payroll tax cut. we need to stimulate real economic growth. and we need to avoid doing further damage to the social security system. first we need to understand that not all tax cuts has economic growth. cutting inframarginal tax rates such as the payroll tax does not. but that payroll tax cut did make a huge difference in the ability of working families to make ends meet in a time of declining family incomes and steadily rising prices. to restore that payroll tax rate today given the economic pressures on working families is simply unthinkable. yet at the same time the payroll tax is what supports the social

security system. last year that system entered a state of permanent deficit. and this condition will worsen until the social security system bankrupts in 2036. at that moment every retiree will suffer a sudden and permanent drop in benefits of roughly 25%. further reducing the revenues into that system will hasten this day of reckoning. just as bad in the intervening time the expanding social security deficit will heap growing burdens on the nation's already staggering public debt. some have proposed paying for the inframarginal payroll tax cut that doesn't help the economy with a marginal tax hike that actually harms the economy. surely we can do better than that. actually congressman landry of louisiana has done better and i commend his proposal to the attention of the house. it avoids damaging the social security fund while at the same time offering families continued relief from crushing payroll

taxes. his measure, h.r. 3551, the social security preservation through individual choice enhancement or spice act, constitutes the most realistic and innovative approach to these twin and related crises that has yet been placed before congress by linking the cost of social security ben bits -- benefits -- cost of social security to the benefits it provides. h.r. 3551 would give every american the choice of paying a lower payroll tax each year in exchange for working a month longer. that's all it would take to pay for itself. a month's delay in retirement for a year's worth of tax relief. for the first time individuals can make this choice to pay a lower payroll tax based on their own circumstances without further undermining the fiscal integrity of the social security system or the financial security of those relying on that system. for the first time costs and

benefits would be linked in a manner that all consumers can understand and judge for themselves based on their own circumstances. in a difficult year like this, i think most families would rather save the extra tax and work the extra month. in better times ahead they may choose to pay the extra tax to maintain their retirement schedule, but it will be their choice based on their needs, their plans, and their best judgment and not the government's. and by linking costs with benefits, it will protect the long-term ack two wear yule sound 234est of the social security system. the fact that the social security system's chief actuary has confirmed. i'm excited to co-sponsor mr. landry's bill and strongly and enthusiastically recommend it to the membership of the house and to the leadership. mr. landry has done an enormous service to every retiree who depends upon the social security system, as well as to every working family struggling in america by preserving the fiscal integrity of the system while at

the same time giving every american a choice that links the tax they pay to the benefits they receive. and it's an option they can exercise every year without fear that a future congressional act or failure to act might sock them with a tax increase they can't afford or hasten the collapse of retirement system that many depend upon for their economic survival. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, in case you were wondering that noise you heard from above yesterday morning was an old third baseman clicking his heels. finally on monday morning, ron santa was inducted into the national baseball hall of fame. now, most people new ronnie as nine-time all star and five-time gold glove winner. one of the top hitters of his

era and third baseman on top 10 list in every statistical category. and many people knew ronnie as the lovable voice of the chicago cubs with whom we cheered every home run, moaned every dropped fly ball, and last at life's most human moments in the booth, including a burning hair piece. but for many years on the field, people didn't know that while racking up 342 home runs, and hitting more than 1,300 r.b.i.'s, ronnie was struggling with diabetes. that's because ronnie accomplished all this from the roster not the disabled list. despite his physical struggles. ronnie wanted to be a great player not a great player under the circumstances. he fought hard on the field for his team and courageously in private for his health. he raised $60 million and a lot of hope for juvenile diabetes research and inspired many to persevere against the odds.

ronnie died too soon. exactly a year ago this week. i wish he lived to see this, but i know that he and harry are sharing and toasting to their favorite team. here's to number 10, ron santo, go cubs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. mr. olson: madam speaker, i rise today to pay tributele to private first class cody r. norris. who was killed on november 9, during combat operations in kandahar province, afghanistan. cody was a proud bulldog.

a 2010 graduate of la port high school in la port, texas. he was a junior rotc, a member of the color guard, rifle team. he was also a member of the military museum. cody deployed to afghanistan while he was assigned to alpha company, second battalion, 34th armored regiment, first infantry division, the army's oldest division, the big red one. in fort riley, kansas. he was a typical american teenager. he enjoyed working on his 1952 m-37 army truck. that he drove to and from school. he was a texas yan who enjoyed paint ball, dear hunting, played video games, and, yes, had a batchy food. -- hibachi food. his lifelong dream was to join

the army. his time in junior rotc in high school motivated him to list in the army to serve his country. he always put on others before himself and did so with a smile on his face. and a kind word for those around him. he had a gift for winning people over. with his caring personality and always trying to cheer up those around him. cody's mother said that he lived life on his terms. and always did what he believed was right regardless of trends or what other people thought. he was well liked by his platoon mates and gained the admiration of others by constantly carrying more than his fair share. according to his brother,

michael, now cadet at west point, in cody's last battle with his batoon was attacked, he was carrying extra ammunition. when he was killed, that extra ammunition hopefully helped save his fellow soldiers, his friends. i never had the honor to know cody personally, but i stand here today humbled by the fact that he and the hundreds of thousands of american troops serving in our armed forces are willing to sacrifice so much so that we may sleep peacefully under the blanket of freedom that they provide. as a former naval aviator, i know all too well the sacrifices families make to support their loved ones who serve in harm's way. cody norris and his family and the thousands of other families who lost loved ones in defense of our country have paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

for them in many ways the war never ends. america can never repay the debt we owe to cody norris and his family. but we can honor his memory and his eternal contributions to our liberty. madam speaker, cody norris is a true american hero. and a grateful nation says thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. all of us join in our colleague in honoring that fallen hero. congressmen must act now to extend the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and domestic renewable energy tax incentives. the effects of the great

recession continue to linger in this economy which is why a moreau bust recovery has not taken -- more robust recovery has not taken hold. the act last year provided what momentum we have, the official unemployment rate has not fallen to 8.6% as a result of 120,000 new jobs created just last month. that's the lowest level in more than two years and marks 21 incentive months of private sector job growth. . but these gains will be at risk if congress fails to extend the payroll tax cut before the end of this year. the payroll tax cut provides the average american worker $1,000 to spend or invest every year, having a positive impact throughout the economy. economic analysts at barkley's estimates that it will add another 1% to gross domestic

product growth. $250 billion in economic activity throughout the united states. conversely, if we fail to extend that payroll tax cut, 160 million americans will be facing a tax increase in january. similarly, 1.3 million americans are trying to get back to the work force, will see their unemployment benefits cut unless we renew them. according to the congressional budget office and senator john mccain's economic advisor, mark zandi, unemployment insurance is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, generating $1.64 for every $1 we invest in unemployment insurance. failure to extend unemployment benefits will reduce the gross domestic product by nearly 1%, and by reducing economic activity could put as many as one million americans out of work at a time we're trying to expand the economy. with respect to domestic clean

energy production, renewing these incentives will sustain one of the few private sector success stories we've witnessed during the great recession. since 2007, the number of jobs in the work wind industry has grown 70%. so today there are as many wind energy jobs as there are in the coal industry. the number of solar industry jobs doubled since 2007 to more than 100,000 americans. this surge in domestic clean energy employment is a direct result of the 1603 treasury grant program to support clean energy activity. madam speaker, as we continue to debate these expiring tax benefit provisions i caution my colleagues against holding them hostage to advance some extreme ideological agenda. last week the senate minority leader blocked legislation to the floor that would have slashed federal employee wages and benefits while arbitrarily downsizing the federal work

force. as the bureau of labor statistics noted, public sector continues to shrink by tens of thousands of jobs. a job is a job whether it's in the public sector or private sector. one is not better than the other. if republicans had not been successful in cutting 535,000 public sector jobs in this country, unemployment would actually be .35% lower. it would be down to 8.25% today, not 8.6%. cutting federal employee pay and slashing the work force would actually undermine the economic benefits of the payroll tax extension and the economic benefits we've worked so hard to create. similarly, we should reject attempts to tie these economic recovery actions with part sal proposals to gut the clean air act. republicans in the house have already try to pass 172 viciously anti-environmental bills, riders and amendments in this body this year alone. now, some in the republican caucus has suggested pairing the clean air act repeals with

an extension of the payroll tax cut. repealing these clean air act standards for industrial boilers, for example, would cost the u.s. economy $21 billion to $52 billion per year in health care costs, real costs to the economy. not surprisingly, some have even proposed expediting approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline in exchange for the payroll tax extension. again, we already have pipelines from canadian tar sands into america. according to independent economic analysis, the keystone pipeline could increase exports of canadian oil, not to the united states, but to china. i want to keep that oil here in this economy if we're going to build that pipeline. madam speaker, the republican leadership's legislative sausage would shock upton sinclaire who wrote "the jungle" 100 years ago. he said it's difficult to get a man to understand something when a salary depends on his nonunderstanding.

instead of wrapping special interest policy riders and giveaways into a package, we should have payroll tax cuts, domestic clean energy incentives and unemployment insurance extension. the economic recovery is too fragile, madam speaker, to risk on the higher health care costs, higher gas prices and economic hardships that some of these republican proposals would otherwise create. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, for five minutes. mr. gibbs: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today -- about three weeks will mark my first year in congress. i ran for congress because i thought i could make a difference. i was concerned about the direction this country was headed. i think we are making a difference but we are frustrated because still almost a year later we still have -- the economy is still in stagnation and many american families are suffering.

the way we fix the economy, in my opinion, is we got to restore confidence. the way we do that is we energize the american people. we reinsert american innovation, entrepreneurship and the american spirit. and one way to coit is cut deficit spending, we have to got our spending under control. we passed budget here in the house that cut almost $6 trillion over 10 years. unfortunately, the united states senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900-plus days. that's not the way to get our fiscal house in order. additionally we passed our budget. we put medicare on a firm reform plan so it's here for the future. number two, we need to have commonsense regulatory reform. right now in our $15 trillion economy, it's been reported that regulations are costing our economy $1.75 trillion annually. the obama administration by their own admission has over

200 new regulations in the pipeline that will cost over $100 billion. this week hopefully we're going to pass a regulatory reform bill called the reins act that any new proposal that's going to cost over economy over $100 million by a federal agency would have to come for an up and down vote from the federal congress. number three, we need to pass some tax reform. unfortunately in 12 1/2 months we are going to see the largest under current law the largest tax increase in american history. that is not the proper way to go. that puts a cloud over the certainty in providing confidence for our businesses to want to grow their businesses, looking at the largest tax increase in american history. in the fourth, we need an energy policy -- fourth, we need an energy policy that encourages the development of resources here in our country. we're exporting almost $1 trillion a year and many, many

jobs overseas for energy. we don't need to be doing that. we've passed on a bipartisan basis our jobs plan. we currently have 25 bills that we passed in a bipartisan basis that would restore confidence and get our economy moving and let me tell you, reform areas and the budget. i want to highlight one at the top of the list, h.r. 172. i brought this bill in march. it passed by a bipartisan supermajority. nearly 300 votes. the thing i don't understand that's very frustrating to me, that bill, as with the other 24 bills, have gone over to the united states senate and hasn't been moved on. i think the american people deserve a fair, open debate on the floor of the united states senate on these bills and vote on them. they deserve that. and that's our jobs plan and it's a jobs plan for moving us forward. i cannot implore enough that we need to have action on these

bills that will restore confidence and grow our economy. the future of our kids, the future of our country, our national security's at stake and we must pass the jobs plan. putting -- spending more money and growing government is not the answer. the answer is commonsense regulatory reform, tax reform, balanced budget and an energy policy that develops and creates jobs here in america and moves us towards national security and prosperity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. mr. watt: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for five minutes. mr. watt: later this week the united states senate is scheduled to consider the president's nomination of richard cadry as the person to

head the consumer financial protection bureau. while our rules don't let us to meddle so much in the senate activities, i do want to spend a minute or two just talking about the importance of the nomination and confirmation of richard cordray and the consumer protection bureau and talk a little bit about the background of why we have a consumer financial protection bureau. the purpose of the consumer financial protection bureau is to promote a fair, honest and transparent marketplace to help consumers compare costs, benefits and risk of consumer

financial products. perhaps some of the most complicated products that consumers have to deal with credit card terms, mortgages and the kinds of things that resulted in our financial meltdown in our economy. now, prior to the passage of the dodd-frank act, there was in every one of the regulated -- regulatory bodies a responsibility to deal with consumer protection. unfortunately, none of those agencies had consumer protection and education as their highest priority. all of them were looking at -- not very well, i would say to you -- the safety and soundness

of the financial industry, the banks and various components of the financial industry. and generally they interpreted safety and soundness to be as long as these institutions are making a big profit, they are safe and sound. and they turn their backs on the interests of the consumer not knowing that if the consumers purchased a lot of very bad mortgages and got themselves into a lot of very bad financial transactions that that would cause the whole system to come tumbling down. so when we passed the dodd-frank bill, we put into the bill a provision to create the consumer financial protection bureau so that there would be somebody in the

federal government, some agency whose sole responsibility is to look out for the consumer. and, of course, a number of my colleagues both in the house and the senate have been fighting this whole concept from day one. they don't like the fact that there is a consumer financial protection bureau and they have vowed not to confirm any nominee that the president sends over there to head this agency. the agency is doing good work already, but it needs a director. despite not having a director, the consumer financial protection bureau has launched a number of initiatives, most notably the know before you owe project which aims to simplify mortgage disclosure forms and help students better understand

financial aid process and repayment options. these are things that are important to consumers. they don't necessarily make up the focus of financial entities, the big banks, the lenders, but our whole economic system is based on an educated consumer, and when consumers get into bad trabs actions, we suffer -- transactions, we suffer as we had in this financial meltdown. we've lost more wealth from mortgages being under water than in any other financial kinds of transactions and if we had had a consumer financial protection bureau in place when this calamity was taking place we wouldn't be in the financial

mess that we are in today. i thank the speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today i rise to honor martina kariya who passed away recently from breast cancer. martina was a courageous and inspiring woman who proved what president obama has often said, quote, in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it. for decades martina fought for human rights in defense of her brother who was sentenced to death based on unreliable eyewitness testimony that was later recanted.

martina's brother, troy anthony davis, was on death row for 20 years until his execution this year. thanks to martina, people rallied around troy's case and began to really think about how it is that a society such as ours can execute a potentially innocent man. inspired by martina, a diverse array of men and women in the united states and from around the world people like amnesty international's laura moy, naacp president ben jellis, the pastor of the historic ebenezer baptist church where the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. once pastored. british m.p., alice ter -- allister carmichael, former president jimmy carter, pope

benedict xvi, and a large group of other distinguished leaders from around the world whose names are too numerous for me to recognize at this time. these folks banded together to fight for troy anthony davis' life. from her humble roots in georgia, martina led this international campaign to save her brother and prove his innocence. martina advocated for justice and fought to save her brother's life and in so doing she became a death penalty alow ligsist in the movement to -- abolitionist in the movement to abolish the death penalty whereby america could finally enjoy the ranks of the other industrialized nations of the world that have barred the use of this barbaric form of punishment. she became an international human rights advocate and it will in part be due to her efforts that we will one day

share the abolition of the death penalty in this country. i will remember and thank martina when we reach that milestone in our development as a nation and as a people. martina fought this battle for her brother while fightling her own battle with breast cancer. you see, she was diagnosed with breast cancer 11 years ago and at that time she was given six months to live. she beat the odds and fought to stay alive so that she could fight for her brother. before her diagnosis in 2002, martina was a nurse and she was also a veteran who served her country in the 1992 gulf war. martina's illness eventually forced her to stop working for a living but she continued to advocate for what was important to her. in addition to her work on

behalf of her brother, martina also was a leader of the national black leadership initiative on cancer where she advocated for a cure. her mother, virginia davis, died in april 2011, shortly after her son troy anthony davis suffered defeat on his appeal. mountaineer's survived by one son, antoine kariya, two sisters, kimberly and ebony davis, and one brother, lefter -- lester davis. it was an honor for me to nomar tina and an honor for me to meet her mother and an honor for me to meet her brother. i'm confident in knowing she will reunite with her dear

mother and with her brother troy as their lives are lippinged for all eternity. fighting to the very end without ever giving up or giving in. she fought a great fight and now it's time to rest for a little bit, martina, you rest in peace. but rest knowing that the movement to abolish the death penalty will continue and with your example at the top of our minds, we will never give up until the job is done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly, for five minutes. mr. donnelly, madam speaker, i rise today because it has been weeks since the bipartisan majority in the senate passed legislation to take on currency manipulators.

weeks have passed and house leadership has refused to allow stand alone up or down vote on currency manipulation legislation right here in the house of representatives. lemming slators from both sides of the aisle talk about the importance of creating jobs every day. why wouldn't we take this opportunity to work together to not only create jobs but to also protect the good-paying jobs we already have here in america? recently the peterson institute for international economics concluded that china's currency is undervalued by 24% against the dollar. that means that america's manufacturers are competing with chinese manufacturers who are enjoying a permanent 24% offsale. snt it time to do something about these problems damaging the u.s. -- isn't it time to do something about these problems damaging the u.s. economy and stand up for american

manufacturers? when countries are allowed to keep the values of their currencies artificially low and in turn the price of their exports into the united states, american companies face an unfair disadvantage. american companies are currently playing on an unlevel playing field where their competitors are able to maintain a permanent sale on all the products they sell. as our trade deficit increases with countries like china, we lose american jobs. in fact, the economic policy institute released a study this fall showing that between 2001 and 2010 the u.s. lost 2.8 million jobs, including nearly 62,000 jobs in my own state of indiana, as a result of the expanding trade deficit with china. the senate has already acted on this issue. they have passed the currency exchange rate, oversight reform act in october.

passage of this bill ensures that correcting unfair trade practices is not a democrat or republican issue. it's an american priority. 16 republican senators joined 47 democrats senators in voting for this bill to counter the currency manipulation that is damaging our economic recovery. in a time of too much partisan bickering, we need to take the opportunity to work together and stand up for american businesses and american workers. that's what we were sent here to do. in addition to the senate-passed bill, we have a piece of legislation right here in the house with 225 co-sponsors, that's more than the majority, both republicans and democrats, that's waiting for a vote. the currency reform and fair trade act would allow the department of commerce to counter imports made cheaper by

currency manipulation with a corresponding trare riff. a nearly -- tariff, a nearly identical bill passed last year with 348 votes. the support is here. we just need to take this vote. when i travel around north central indiana, i often hear from small businesses and manufacturers on this issue. and they never ask that congress guarantee their success. they simply ask for a level playing field and to have the rules the same for everybody. all they want is a fair fight. and so today i echo my requests from two months ago to the house leadership, it is time, it is time for bipartisan legislation that addresses currency manipulation and to have a vote on it here in the house of representatives. a stand alone, up or down vote. as i said then i'll say it again, to our house leadership, who do you stand with?

the chinese government or american workers? it is time to stand up for our country and for all of the people who work in our country and for all of our citizens. let's have a vote. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this week representatives from several nations will meet in bonn, germany, to discuss the future of afghanistan. the bohn -- bonn conference comes exactly after the first one which established the karzai government. it established it 10 years ago so right now is the perfect moment to assess and reflect on where we are and where we are going in afghanistan. by any measure, madam speaker,

the war we have been waging in afghanistan for the last decade has been a failure. our hard-earned tax dollars have been tragically wasted on a policy that has projected the worst image of america to the rest of the world. it has undermined our interest and damaged our national security. and let's not forget the human costs. more than 1,800 american families will sit at their tables over the holidays with a person missing. over the holiday season. if we want to eliminate fallen warriors, we must bring them home while they're still alive. hopefully the bonn conference will pivot us to the next phase of our afghanistan engagement. from military occupation to constructive partnership. from waging war in afghanistan

to helping in the spirit of peace and friendship. 10 years after we supposedly liberated them, the people of afghanistan have enormous humanitarian needs. we need to help them rebuild their infrastructure, strengthen their democracy, and safeguard the rights of their people. all of which can be done for pennies on the dollar compared to spending military dollars. in short we need the smart security approach i have been advocating for years. in bonn president karzai is saying that afghanistan will require foreign economic assistance for at least the section 10 years. the -- next 10 years. the estimated cost of $10 billion a year, which sounds like a lot for those supports, make you realize, however, that we are spending at least that much, probably more, every month

in afghanistan. as a nation we should eggerly embrace the responsibility to make these relatively -- eagerly embrace the responsibility to make these relatively modest investments in nonmilitary aid to afghanistan. this is the right thing to do and in the long run we'll discover it's a far greater investment than 10 more years of war. the past 10 years of war has done little to improve the lives and advance the rights. for example, of afghan women. many of us are familiar with the story of the afghanwoman who was raped -- afghan woman who was raped and impregnated by a male relative when she was 19 years old and then she was sent to jail for the crime of adultery. her initial sentence was three years. then after a second trial it was increased to 12 years. but a judge offered her clemency

under one condition. she had to marry the man who raped her. at long last, madam speaker, after a petition drive organized by the woman's lawyer yielded 6,000 signatures, president karzai was -- has granted the woman an unconditional pardon. she will be released from prison without having to spend her life with her attacker. it's a relief that moral decency prevailed in this one case, but the facts of this qualifies as a human rights victory in afghanistan reveals just how far we have to go. there are many more afghan women like her who suffer humiliation every single day, who have no control over their destinies. the true measure of american leadership is what we do to help

these women and so many other afghans who want nothing more than to live a decent life of hope, freedom, and relative comfort. we won't help by extending a war that has already failed these people and violated our most fundamental values. it's time to bring our troops home and make the transition to smart security. now. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess >> wrapping up mourning our speeches in the house, members will be back in at about noon for legislative action. there are 10 bills on the docket today. we will have more live house coverage beginning at noon eastern here and cspan.

that hat -- while the house is in recess, we'll go to a hearing looking at insider-trading allegations among congressional members and staffers. at this hearing got underway just after 10:00 this morning. >> my standard for myself is i assume every piece of information i get here that i would not have gotten in that classroom in minnesota a teaching geography to the knowledge of gains from the job. it is easy for me to say. you are poor and don't trade stocks. my point is not to jam someone up and make it so they cannot do what they need to do. the american public trade stocks at a where representatives of the public, it would make sense that there are people here. are they doing it in a fair and unbiased manner. ? as you narrow it, you may cause mouth -- more problems by being over-narrow.

on the issue of tipping and tippees, this is where the political intelligence firms and the information going down -- this issue is where the real problem might lie of an ad in saying something at thanksgiving dinner that your brother-in-law was able to reduce and how would that come back to you when there was no intention by the member of congress to profit by it but the information was passed forward. >> going back to tipping, you are saying that the omission of the tipping, in your view, does not limit the effectiveness of this bill? >> no, i think it is addressed in the political intelligence firms. those are under the impression that they are purposely, and to gather that information to use

that information there were paid together by someone else. that is the tipping being gathered and addressed under that portion. you're talking about a broader issue. the way we interpret this and this is where weather lot is needed or not is that that issue of tipping amongst fiduciary responsibility, the idea if i have that responsibility, is already handle law. -- is already in the law. we think this uses the enforcement of existing sec to apply here, if this makes sense. >> from my understanding, you are saying that tipping cannot be effectively enforced with legislation. that is a behavioral -- how do you police that? >>thye sec may be best on that

and they may struggle with that. i was struck by the ambiguity of the original law. we looked at court cases, a clear-cut case ave law firm using inside information and some of them are far more ambiguous. we want to set the bar higher for members of congress and let the public know it will be very difficult to do this and if it is done, there are reports toxins -- repercussions for it. >> thank you very much. >> let me read the list on the republican side. i made a mistake and called on ms manzula. that would put mr. posey next because it is the order they arrived.

at this time, mr. posey is recognized. no questions? mr. duffy? >> thank you. i appreciate the witness is coming in. mr. walz i appreciate your passion. i want to run for what is included or not included in the legislation. i know we have a $1,000 trigger for the reporting burden is that $1,000 per trade or is that a threshold amount? if i do to "$950 trades, -- if i do two 900 to develop trade, do

i have to report? >> it is portrayed them so i could trade $50,000 in a stock if i kept every trade under $900, is that right? ok, that is one of my concerns. i think the leadership here is fantastic. >> this goes back to our reporting requirements of those zones which are silly but we do them for ease. your argument as well put it. >> i think the american people want sunshine. i think we should let that light shine into every corner. i appreciate your willingness to say that it might not be perfect in your open to suggestions. is there a reason why we picked

$1,000? >> it was the same reason we did -- we do this zones on the reporting requirement is to ease the paperwork on this. we understand if we went to the pure 48 hours that ceo's have to abide by and there trade, we simply don't have the staff to handle that. that was fair threshold level. from a theoretical argument, i am with you -- one should be the number. i think it makes sense. >> i noticed you did not include a blind trust. i include a blind trust in the bill that i drafted. if you want to take it out of the hands of members and want to protect themselves, they can take their assets and put it in a blind trust. is there a reason you didn't? >> it took a six years to get seven people.

it was as easy as it could possibly be. if we went to that level, i think we would have gotten the same seven but we tried to pass this before became an issue. if we tried to bring it to the committee where it was palatable leaving openings for improvement from the committee. i am certainly for it but you have to be careful because i don't want to incur a fee on a blind trust because i don't need one. if we are going to do it, i think we should do it the right way and there is a movement in the house that permeates the building that does not come up for years. when there is a movement to move a bill, which to get the best bill possible. it sounds good and it feels good but i think the american people if it doesn't accomplish the goal, they look back a couple of years and say people are still getting around the great stock act because it did not have -- >> i think it will work but this

was not crafted overnight and it was a lot of conversations. i am certainly willing to improve eds. >> i know we have a 90-day time period. things move quickly. maybe we could have a three-day time period. in three days, we can say this is the trade we made and if there is big news in york trading against the big news and you go in a different direction, are you meeting with someone? did they give you an setter information? >> you are preaching to the choir was made. you might want to ask other members what they think. >> we have the house and the senate -- the president often has a blind trust but i don't think it is required also his staff comes into insider information just like our staff. why is ithe -- what is in the executive branch included? we should include the degette

sherry and their senior staff. -- which include the judiciary and their senior staff. is that consistent for what you approved in the 90 day desk could disclosure rule? >> yes. >> allow me to interrupt -- this hearing shows exactly why we have an opportunity and i appreciate you going in and irresolution going in and if nothing else comes from best but meaningful legislation that the congress as of next year and a year after know what is right and what is wrong, the american people will win. thank you for what you are doing and you are doing -- let's come together and make this something where we can all join hands and be proud of it. the american people can see we get -- we care about integrity

and the congress. >> mr. walz let's do the right thing. there's a movement now to get it done. let's do the best bill possible. >> we are 107 is stronger than we were last week so we are stronger. >> thank you. any other questions by members? if not, the panel is excuse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

>> our second panel is made up of robert kazami director of enforcement of u.s. securities in the security and exchange commission and we welcome you and look forward to your opening statement. >> thank you. members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the united states securities and exchange commission on the subject of the application of insider-trading prohibitions to members of congress. insider trading threatens the integrity of our markets, depriving investors of the fundamental fairness that comes the markets that are open, transparent, and fair and all citizens of the balance of economic growth and stability that comes with markets that operate on a level playing field. because these goals are so important, prosecution of

insider trading has been a top priority of the division of enforcement. approximately 8% of the 650 average annual number of enforcement cases filed by the commission in the past decade have been for insider trading. in 2010, the sec brought 200 cases against 30 individuals. it was a 43% increase from the previous fiscal year. in this past fiscal year, we filed 57 actions against 124 individuals and entities in court, a nearly 8% increase. there is no express' statutory definition of insider trading. the sec prosecute insider- trading under the general anti- fraud provisions of the federal security laws most commonly, section 10b of the securities and exchange act of 2004.

section 10b declares that it is unlawful to use or employed in connection with the purchase and sell securities and manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contradiction of sec rules. there is no reason why treading -- what members of congress trading or their step would be exempt from federal securities laws including insider trading. the application of these principles to such trading particularly with respect to members of congress may present some immunity issues. as in any other insider-trading inquiry, there are several fact- intensive questions that would drive the analysis of whether securities trading were tipping by a member of congress or staff member based on information learned in an official capacity violates section 10b. is trading or communicate the

information breeching the duty by a member or staff? although there is no precedent for congressional staff, there is case law from other contacts regarding misappropriation of information. this president is clear that a congressional staff member as an employee owes a duty of trust and confidence to their employer and a congressional staff member who trades on the basis of material non-public information i obtained through their employment is potentially liable for insider-trading like any other non-governmental employee. with respect to members, courts have held in context other than insider trading that members have fiduciary-like the duties of public trust by virtue of their position. such do these exist is reinforced by ethics rules applicable to members that provides member should not use information obtained in connection with their duties for public -- for private property

gains. there is no case law that addresses the duty of a member with respect to trading on the basis of information the member learned in an official capacity. commentators differ on the existence or reach of such duties. second question is whether the information on which a member or staffer traits is material. is there is substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision? materiality is a mixed question of law and fact and it depends on all the relevance. in some scenarios, it may be relatively clear the upcoming congressional action would be material to a particular issue or company. ground other cases it may be less clear. the third critical question is whether the information on which the member or staffer traded or tipped is non-public. the commission has stated that information is non-public when it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to the general public.

weather information is non- public would likely depend and the circumstances under which the member or staff learned the information and the extent to which the intermission has been disseminated to the public. as with all issues of liability and other claims under section 10b, the conduct must be intentional or reckless or not in good faith. since all of these issues are inherently difficult to generalize, it is hard to come to any general conclusions about the likely outcome of any particular scenario. while trading by members of congress or their staff is not exempt from the insider-trading prohibitions, there are distinct legal and factual issues that may arise in any investigations or prosecutions of such cases. investigations into potential trading or tipping by members of congress or their staff could pose some unique issues including those that may arise under the constitutional privilege afforded to congress.

in light of existing insider- trading legal precedent, and statutory changes in this area should be carefully calibrated to insure that they do not narrow current law and thereby make it more difficult to bring future insider-trading acquisitions to individuals outside of congress. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. director, on the next panel will hear from professor nagy? of the indiana law school. i read her testimony last night and she states that congress could use this current controversy to diagnose and treat the entire melody for the enactment of an express statutory definition for all individuals. do you believe congress should

enact such an insider-trading law? >> mr. chairman, my view is that there i think there is a simpler and clearer way to get to the same outcome without risking some of the dangers that would flow from the general statutory prohibition that attempted to cover the entire field of insider trading. the single biggest issue is whether there is trust between fellow members of congress or the institution or the citizenry. that duty is essential in one form or another for there to be the ability to bring in an insider-trading case. from an enforcement perspective, the simplest and cleanest way would be to declare that such a duty exists, that members have a

duty not to use information gained in the course of their congressional service for private gain or personal gain. with that the duty, insider- trading cases could be brought assuming then that the other requirements i mentioned. you might have two sets of standards, one and the statutes of congress pretended to itself and one for everybody else. it could breed litigation or attempts to interpret what congress did as changing existing law and the other areas. from my perspective, i think that is the simplest and cleanest way to go. >> are you available to work with sponsors of this bill to

review the legislation and make revisions consistent with how you just testified? >> absolutely, our staff has been involved in extensive discussions on the details of the legislation. we would be happy to continue to do that than i thank you. >> there appears to be some consensus that members and employees of congress are subject to the same rules on insider trading as others that use or disclose material non- public informational a company. many questions remain as to application to congress. if the stock act becomes law, would the sec's existing authority still exist? how would the sec authority differ? >> in some cases, the act

narrows existing law and in other cases, it expands its. while we would still retain our authority potentially to bring our case is under existing law, the fact that congress had passed a new piece of legislature to cover the field means it would really be the source of our authority to bring cases against members of congress. if you compare it to the existing authority, there are a couple of instances where it narrows the existing authority. for example, insider trading is limited -- material desk nonpublic information, that does deals with pending legislation meaning that information a member of congress might obtain in a briefing from the executive branch or a briefing from a

regulatory agency would not be covered necessarily because it would not deal with pending or prospective legislation. that conceivably is a narrowing of the current law. the stock act is not positively address tipping which was discussed in the last panel, as well. existing authority says if you have a duty to keep information confidential and it is material- nonpublic in the passage of someone else, you the tipper can be liable for doing that as well as the tippee. the stock act currently does not address that issue directly. for that reason, in order to have one uniform set of standards that apply to everyone, highlighting and establishing a duty on behalf of members of congress, not to use their information again and their congressional service, for personal gain and declaring that a duty would be the simplest way

to go. >> thank you, that is all. >> i would recognize myself for five minutes. do you know anything about the ethics procedures we have. i certainly at the committee for three terms and that as long as you can stay. i think it is a very important part of the congress. i'm wondering if what is in that would cover this at all that you know of. >> as an enforcement authority, our job is to investigate and file cases based on the violation of law. we cannot file cases on the basis of ethics violations, obviously. anything that enhanced the

ethical obligation of members of congress, not to use information for personal/private gain which is currently what the rules provide for, help us because they help to establish this duty of trust and confidence. board to go to court tomorrow with such a case, i would point to the ethics rules as the basis to say the duty already exists. the benefit of the legislation is that i cannot guarantee our particular court might rule and that government one way or another. if there was a piece of legislation passed that it made it clear a lot of that ambiguity would be resolved. >> would that be enough rather than having the legislation if the ethics were clear? >> i don't think it would be. if there is a lawless as such a

duty exists, that is clear and unambiguous. i think it will greatly reduce the uncertainty that a court might not find that its duty. >> he made it clear that members are not exempt from the insider- trading laws but there seems to be a swell from some people that reports to the contrary. because the conference is not a corporation or a company or entity, that there is -- that they are not subject to belong. how do we put them all together? >> the hearing today and last week should make it clear that there is no such exemption . you are subject to this same laws as everyone else, leaving aside things like the speech and debate clause. >> thank you.

i would deal back and recognize the gentle lady from new york, mrs. malone. >> thank you for your testimony. i want to go over what you were saying that you think it should be expanded to cover tubing and other meetings with other agencies. would you also include the sec no-action letters and other actions like that to? do you think that would be broad enough? >> the action letters along with other means are designed for a way to carve out certain safe harbors or to give individual persons comfort that what they are about to do will not violate block. if we pass such a law that proclaim such a duty, members to take advantage of no action letters, get advice from their own counsel, and take other

steps to make sure that they did not do something that is desperately violated law. i think that would be an important part of any overall regulation in this area. that option exists already, frankly. if they have a fiduciary duty with the citizens and enough responsibility, how would the sec investigates in those categories? how would change what you're doing now or would it change? i am not sure i would necessarily characterize it as a fiduciary duty. along also recognizes what would be a fiduciary light duty, a duty of trust and confidence that has its origins in fiduciary duty but is a dear creature my view would be that should be added as of the examples of the duty of trust

and confidence. there are potential consequences that academics and others on the panels are better versed to discuss then i. there could be consequences proclaiming a fiduciary duty that would not necessarily be intended or may not be able to be foreseen. that would be my personal view is that -- as to the best way to approach it. it would not affect our investigations. there be less of a risk that a particular court would not act based on current circumstances. the other thing that is critically important is the disclosure portion. without disclosure of trading on a timely basis, it is difficult to get notification of circumstances that might justify investigation. we get tips and referrals on

insider-trading cases by all sorts of persons from the exchanges and from other sources. we get that off and on a real- time or near-real time basis. that is important to get the information fresh because memories are still sharp. steps have not been taken to conceal activity. prompt disclosure, prefer electronic and per researcher ball would paula be the single most important thing that could be done for our investigation. >> are there other legislative approaches out there that you're aware of in this area? >> they tend to break down and between the narrow approach like simply establishing the duty and leaving it to existing law to address the other elements or a statutory prohibition that could defied all the terms. i think that is difficult to do. it was tried in the 1980's.

people gave up because it is very difficult to write a law that covers all the possible that some circumstances to make sure that no one who should be captured is left to the sides. then you end up not providing the specificity and guidance you might like because it is so general and broad. you also don't want to provide a road map for people to understand exactly what line they have to tack against to avoid liability. that is another reason why we prefer the narrower approach. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> the gentleman from missouri, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. one of the things that concerns me is that we can probably get

new laws but if we don't enforce them, we're just wasting our time. we have had the imf global situation and people were talking to me about that. they broke below apparently and that that's the case, they need to suffer some punishment or go to jail. the rules are already in place. my question to you is -- the rules are in place right now, is there an enforcement mechanism in place to enforce those rules? >> yes. >> if we pass this bill, is there a mechanism in force in this bill? >> you mean the ability >> you will label -- you'll be able to enforce this law? >> correct. >> what about the penalties and

the rules in place now? >> it reduces the risk that comes with the lack of clarity and laws as to whether or not there is such a duty that exists between members and congress or the citizens or others. there's a risk currently that nor court inside of that issue if we were to bring a case, a certain judge might look at it and say no such duty exists where as if we had the legislation, that risk would be limited. >> has there been enforcements of the roles in the past? average been cases brought to? >> insider-trading cases, yes. >> are they referred by the ethics committee or by other outside groups? >> they come from all sources. they come from the exchanges, they come from letters and e- mails and cooperating witnesses

and things we read in the newspaper and a dozen other sources. >> you talked about some things that either brought in or narrow the your ability to do your job. i want to hope that the authors of the bill were will work with you to make sure it happens. my only comment from the standpoint that while the american people are up on things that happened here and the things that been perceived as a and fence -- and inconceivable, the enforcement of existing rules and laws i think is critical. if somebody does something wrong, there has to be a punishment of some kind. a waving of the one of forgiveness by everybody is not necessarily the way the issue worked. i'm curious as to your perception of how do you see this happening?

i appreciate your views this morning. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady from new york, mrs. mccarthy is recognized for five minutes better thank you. in your testimony, you note that we have statuary changes carefully crafted to ensure that they do not narrow current law. you talked about that in your opening statement, making it more difficult to pursue future violations of this insider trading. the legislation requires your agency and cgfgc to adopt new rules. how could you ensure that the rules do not have an adverse affect on enforcement of insider trading? how you pick somebody up who has done insider-trading? what are the signals? how you look for those?

>> the violations come from a number of different sources. analyticsge's have and software in which aberrational trading pops out of the system so that if they see a spike in options trading and announcement of a takeover, that will jump out of the system. investigation would then be done to trace that and see who is trading in those accounts and you look to see whether those persons have connections to the source of insider information that you would expect to see and says a circumstance such as bankers or lawyers or the insiders of the company. do they have a neighbor who happen to work for the investment bank that had the mandate on the deal. it is a painstaking process of

tracing and layering together trading and the events leading up to a corporate event or other events. then you have the telephone calls and meetings and e-mails and you put it all together and you put it -- you hope you put together a substantial case. you can then reach a reasonable conclusion and hopefully convince a jury. this person had access to the information and they had a conversation and look what they did. they have never owned anything more than a mutual fund and all the sudden, they bought $20,000 worth of a different announcement. that is the kind of circumstance that gives rise to the inference. in other occasions, as we did in the galley on cases --galleon. you can detect conversations in

real time with wiretapping. you can catch the inside information being passed. we have a cooperative witnesses who may be in trouble somewhere else and i come to us and say they know about the insider- trading. we have a whistleblower program which may give us additional leads as well. it comes from all sources but it inevitably, it is a peace- building of a case. >> if someone who is calling their broker to make these traits, you have to people that would be dealing with this? potentially, if the client is making the call to the broker has material non-public information they are trading on, they will have violated the insider-trading laws. the brokers ,the tippee has to note that the information is coming in breach of a duty. if the person said to buy wandered shares of ibm, he probably would not do it.

they said by me $10,000 and many did done before noon, i just heard something from someone who works on the board at ibm that he might be liable if he traded himself. >> how you see your agency and to thecftc to do this. is confusing for many of us. every member puts in the same hours i do whether we are here meeting with constituents. that is why you have a broker to do with their supposed to be doing. my concern is that we do our compliance once a year. it is used to read after tax season. if they want to do the $1,000 trade, will have to report that when it be easier to reported every three months instead of --

i have no idea if he trades at $1,000 or what the budgets are or anything like that. i guess we get statements once a month. that means that would have to go through every trait? >> it depends on where you set the threshold. in the corporate world, corporate insiders have to file within two business days of the transaction. that is standard practice. in many situations, the disclosure is done electronically. in some sense, there is no greater burden to fall $100 trade and there is the $5,000 trade. you can just file electronically with your brokerage statement getting sent directly to whoever is maintain the data base. i recognize their burdens associated with this. from imports -- from enforcement

point of view, i want as much information. >> would that add a burden to the brokers service charge? >> it shouldn't. but would have to have the capacity to do that. it would not cost any more for the brokers because that would typically mean hitting a button and sending and account statements. we would not generally get it directly. >> i hope you will be able to work with the members because most likely will do something and hopefully we will do with something that is correct. my personal belief is that this becomes a witch hunt and the majority of members here are not out to make a quick buck. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> mr. conseco?

>> i personally am concerned about section 3 of the stock act which seems to contradict the speech or debate clause. as you mention in your testimony, the case of gavel vs. united states, they said the clause was designed to create a co-equal branch of government. . as members of congress kgo before the media, section 3 of the stock act could essentially bar them from publicly saying anything that may or may not move markets are stocks which really gag's them from commenting on very important legislation to the american people. do you feel section 3 violates

the speech and debate clause? >> the speech and debate clause is a separate matter. that will exist in respect of what is done with respect to establishing a duty or passing legislation that prohibits insider-trading. it is something that we as the enforcement authorities have to navigate through and respect -- i'm sorry. thank you. not the best person to opine on that. i am happy to consider that. and get back to you with a response. sometimes the statute is clear and other areas it is less so.

i would ask for the opportunity to get back to you on that a given more thought. >> thank-you, and i appreciate that. >> i would say that all the insider-trading laws require intense. that is the single biggest thing that protects the unwary from being trapped in a violation that inadvertently occurred. you have to act with corrupt intent, knowledge, or recklessness. if you act in good faith, you will not be guilty. >> does the sec have an opinion on how they could determine exactly which public companies could have their trading affected by members comments and how would you determine this? >> in a typical insider-trading case, that speaks to the issue of materiality. once the information as defined in the current law -- >> let me interrupt you with

regards to section 3 of the stock act. if i go out in front of a microphone and tv and tell them what bill i am contemplating to push through the floor of the house -- >> if that is all you did as part of your congressional duties and acted in good faith, i think that would be a devoe case to the maker of insider- trading. even if you assimilated broadly. >> aside from the fact that that

i know something that is happening with some bill and i go back into my office and call my broker and say buy or sell or short or golan, that would obviously be apart from section 3. i am speaking specifically about speaking in public about a bill that could move a market. >> that is one of the reasons why if there was a clearly defined duty with respect to that information, that would clarify all law in this area and make it clear kind of conduct is over the line and what conduct is not. >> with respect to section 3 of

the stock act which is the getting out in public and talking about a bill or legislation coming up, do you think to is the duty of the fcc to go out and police 5435 members of congress? >> no, we're just looking for people who violate block. >> is a workable within the sec enforcement office -- operations to go out there and oversee 535 people in congress as to what they say publicly that may not -- that may or may not move markets? >> no, our job would be to either identify or have brought to our intention trading that looks suspicious and determine whether all the elements have been satisfied. i am speaking of the stock act, assuming it is passed and made into law. think we would be

generally conducted a police authorizatio police operation for all members of congress. >> mr. scott attacks >? >> dealing with the stock market, trading on the new york stock exchange is like the cornerstone of our entire economic system. it is basically based upon seeking pertinent information. when you are trading in stocks, it is like trying to be in the right area listening to the right gossip about what is going on at the right time. how do you enforce this? how will we really enforce this?

give me an example of what is non-public material. that is the core of this. where would i go wrong -- given example as a member of congress, give me some examples of what i would be doing which would be in violation of this act. >> in general, as a member of congress, you became aware of a company saying that they would be -- they learned it would be subject to a piece of legislation that would have a significant impact on their business, and as a result of that information which was not public in the sense that it was only known to a small group people -- >> can you give me the example

of what that information would be? >> if you learned about a contract that was to be awarded to a certain company or you were to learn about legislation that might restrict the business opportunities of a certain company, if you're going to something to the fda drug approval process that would make it harder for companies to have drugs approved, those things would have an impact on the price of company stock. you could have violated the insider-trading prohibitions. >> under this legislation, what would happen to me? what would be the penalty? what is the real acts in this

legislation? if i did that? >> the penalties are well established which means you could be subject to enforcement action filed against you. you could be required to discourage all of your help desk gotten gains are provinces. in addition, you could be assessed a penalty up to three times the amount of that disgorgement. he made $100, you have to give it back and you could be penalized $300. >> in other wars, there is no criminal sanction or felony? >> we don't because we don't have criminal authority but the department of justice prosecute insider-trading cases on the exact same statute. they, too, could charge a person under those circumstances in which case, jail time and restitution and other remedies

could be available. the criminal authorities have a higher standard. they have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the sec only needs to prove by a preponderance of evidence. >> this bill opens up something which we have not touched upon and that is this construct of political intelligence. what is that? >> my understanding is that these are firms in the business of signing up clients who pay for their intelligence was survey in turn gathered from mining various sources with what is going on with respect to pending legislation and other developments in congress and the federal government. >> at what point would member of congress know that what he may

be saying or responding to a constituent or anybody which we do, he is engaging in political intelligence? >> if you're having a conversation with a firm and talking about what is going on, you would not have any insider- trading to exposure if you were acting in good faith that you did not purchase or sell securities on your own. i don't necessarily think it would have a chilling effect on bonafide a legitimate conversations. >> one final point -- these political agencies what might want to call a member of congress. you could set them up and pass on and say to them that unbeknownst to the member of

congress, he has been used of what projects that number of congress. >> under those facts, you generally would not have liability for insider trading. you may have passed some non- public information and that may have other repercussions not from an enforcement perspective. there could be ethical or other issues. from a pure insiders trace perspective, that would not render you exposed to insider- trading liabilities. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. if i understand it right, today, currently, congress and their staffs are not exempt from the federal securities laws including insider trading, prohibitions through the application of these principles. as it stands today, congress is

not exempt and their staff is not exempt from any insider- trading rules? >> correct. >> with that being said, this bill we are talking about religious clarifies that. >> no, the approach that i person i might prefer is to be a narrower bill that would simply declare that there is such a duty by members of congress to keep information they obtained in the course of their congressional service. that has to be confidential and not use it for personal gain. that contributes the most. there's a broader prescription to try to define all the elements or many of the elements of insider-trading. in some cases, it may be at odds with existing law and some cases may be under-inclusive. there is some danger in having

that law exist as well as the law that currently developed. that would clarify. >> we can almost clarify this whole bill that would narrow it in terms of a narrow focus. >> or maybe replace it. >> ok. the other thing this bill does is it requires quarterly reporting of transactions, $1,000 or more but every member of this congress, today is required to report every struck cents -- every stock transaction already. they are already reporting that. where is that going? if every member is reporting it and they have been for the last 20 or 30 years, what are you doing with that information? it gets back to some of my colleagues. we can report everything we want to report but there's never any

enforcement, what are the enforcement mechanisms when member of congress supports the transaction. >> the disclosure would be greatly beneficial from a pure enforcement perspective if it was made on a timely basis and may electronically and is searchable. it creates ease with which we can identify trading and determine whether or not any investigation is warranted. if it is not reported, is just -- there might be a long passage of time before you get access to the information. >> it is reported every year. every transaction you could pull off the internet. those transactions of every congressperson are already reportable and on the internet and can be picked up and looked at.

one year or however long after the events in question -- >> what is normal with insider trading? if somebody filed a report in april and you did something with it and you saw some unusual transactions in april of last year or june of last year, you could say let's do investigation on that. is there anything being done in that regard? >> you could bet is investigations that take place as close in time to the events in question are just more affected. memories are sharper if may is easier to obtain and there are fewer opportunities for concealing what took place. >> if you're not looking at the five of the 35 report -- thousand reports had identified, will you look at 5 and 35 * $4?

if you have those reports and are not doing anything with them, what would four more reports do for you? >> some of the trading would still potentially be referred to as if they took place on exchanges and referred through the normal referral process we get from the exchanges where the trades occur. the problem is if they are not reported over that long that time, it is more difficult. in addition, if you are trying track the path of the particular legislation and when people knew certain things, it is much harder to do. it would be more burdensome to do it four times rather than one. and for us as well but -- >> we will bring you live coverage of the u.s. house.

this hearing will continue on our website at c-span.org. going live now to the house floor for legislative business this afternoon, 10 bills being debated today including one requiring congressional approval for a major executive branch issued a regulation.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the speaker: the prabe will be offered by our guest chaplain today, reverend brian teason of journey church, bridgeville, pennsylvania.

the chaplain: father, we thank you for this nation, your love and most of all your forgiveness of sins. we acknowledge that scripture states in james 1:5 that are you the giver of all wisdom. maw you give these men and women your wisdom in all their deeds and discussions. according to row mans 13, let everyone be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except that which god has established. may these here be good stewards of this responsibility, leadership and your gift of freedom for our nation. we ask for your special protection over our military and blessing for their families. we pray for our enemies as you instruct us. may their plans be thwarted and may they come to the love and grace that only you can offer. in the only name, through whom man can be saved, gee suft christ, amen -- jesus christ, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces his approval thereof. the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleshman. 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 gentleman from -- the gentleman, mr. murphy, is recognized. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to introduce today's guest chaplain, father brian teaston in bridgeville, pennsylvania. since the house first used a chaplin, it was elected by congress in 1989, it has been tradition for prayer to open the house daily proceedings and i thank the office of the chape lane for allowing -- chaplain for allowing the pastor to have the opportunity to continue this tradition and lead us in pray

prayer. pastor teason joined the bridgeville community in april, 2011, along with his wife, and has been a driving force in improving the community since the moment he stepped foot in southwestern pennsylvania. during pastor teason's tenure he has seen his parish grow in size which can be attributed to the exceptional work he has done in leading his church. he's also been elected president of the bridgeville minister's association where he leads bridge shl area churches and nonprofit organizations in community outreach events. he also serves as the christian education director of the southwest metro section of the assemblies of god. as director, pastor teason guides 35 churches in christian education programs and ministries in the southwestern pennsylvania region. i especially thank pastor teason and members of his parish for make the trip to washington this morning. house is very pleased to have all of them and we're excited to hear the words of the lord he has chosen to share with us today. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 21 2, an act to exempt for an additional four-year period from the application of the means test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the armed forces and members of the national guard who, after september 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for 15 one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, today the house will begin consideration of the regulations from the executive and need of scrutiny act of 2011. also referred to as the reins act. this bill will require congress

to approve any federal regulation that will impact our economy by $100 million or more. the small business administration estimates that regulations are costing our nation's citizens $1.75 trillion per year. the current administration's report on federal regulations listed over 4,200 under development since last december and over 200 additional regulations proposed this year. costing consumers billions of dollars, destroying jobs. this fact is another example of how out of touch the president is with the hardworking and deserving american families. it is time for congress to take action and stop the imposition of these job-killing policies that discourage small businesses from growing and expanding. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, america's third president, john adams, once said, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. well, mr. speaker, the facts now show that the health care reform law is working for america's seniors. this morning c.m.s. released figures that showed that 2.7 million seniors saved $1.2 billion in 2011 with lower prescription drug costs because the health care reform law is closing the prescription drug doughnut hole. mr. courtney: 28,500 in connecticut, 5,560 in my district, the second district. the report also shows that 24 million seniors have used the annual checkup that the health care reform law now provides free of charge, a smarter, more intelligent way to pick up disease and illness for our elderly. as the president adams once said, facts are stubborn things and the facts show the health care reform law is working for america's seniors. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, freedom of choice is under attack by washington. the government wants to control the light in homes and businesses throughout america. a new law bans the incandescent light bulb and will require americans to buy the new special $3 government-approved light bulb. soon it will be against the law to sell thomas edison's

incandescent lightbulb. the symbol of american innovation. this kind of government intrusion in our lives has left many americans in the dark about what's next. government invasion in our lives is only increasing. since the federal government has take the power to choose away from americans, people are flocking to the local wal-marts to hoard the last of the incandescent light bulbs. government controls so much of our live notice name that government is smarter than we are. but for now, it's turn out the lights, the party's over, for thomas edison's incandescent light bulb and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the national move to interfere with voting rights of eligible citizens is deliberate. in 2011 the number of states requiring strict forms of government-issued i.d.'s has

nearly quadrupled. why the sudden increase? well, proponents claim that voter fraud is the driving force. yet there is no evidence of this kind of deception. mr. holt: what do they think, there are droves of people sneaking across the southern border so they can vote or 15-year-olds trying to sneak into voting booths and so we've got to card them? this is simple simply description massacre aiding as orderly government. it's estimated that one in 10 eligible, registered voters do not have the forms of i.d. that are acceptable under these expanding state laws. we can't stand by and let big money and special interests manipulate the results of elections by enacting 21st century poll taxes. poll taxes were thrown out decades ago. as discrimination and contrary to democratic processes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, during the house armed services committee's review of the national defense authorization act or ndaa, i successfully froped a -- proposed a two-tier amendment to -- tier one bars the white house from giving the russian federation any american hit to kill or other sensitive missile defense technology. tier two bars the white house from giving russia any american nonsensitive missile defense technology unless the white house first certifies to congress that america's missile defense will not be undermined and our technology will not be proliferated. senator mark kirk of illinois' blocking the russian ambassador nomination until appropriate safeguards exipt that protect america's missile defense technology. i applaud senator kirk's efforts.

the ndaa is now in conference committee. i urge the conferees to support the has amendment and safeguard missile defense technologies that have cost american taxpayers so much and help protect america so well. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize not only one of the greatest coaches of all time, but also one of the greatest people of all time. university of tennessee lady vols coach pat summit. yesterday coach summit was named sports illustrate d's sports woman of the year. and there was no one more deserving than her. not only is she the all-time winningest coach in ncaa basketball history, with well over 1,000 wins, including 16 s.e.c. titles and eight national

championships, but she is also an exemplary role model for the students she coaches and a shining ambassador for the university she represents. mr. fleischmann: earlier this year coach summit was diagnosed with early onset dementia, alzheimer's type. while the news would be unbearable for many, to take at such a young age, coach summit has stayed on the sidelines and continues to coach the lady vols. she is again leading by example and showing her players that while life is full of obstacles, you can continue to achieve success through hard work and dedication. thank you, coach summit. i am glad you represent my am ma madder. go big orange. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> as a surgeon i stand here today to voice my concern about

the impending cuts to the medicare program. i implor congress to craft a multiyear fix to the s.g.r., ideally a permanent fix. this is a real threat to seniors across the country. each year the congress continues to play politics with seniors' access to quality care, this must end. seniors, some of our most vulnerable citizens, may not be able to see the doctors of their choosing if congress does not address this issue. according to the m.a., one in three physicians are limiting the number of medicare patients they see and one in eight are not longer taking medicare patients. what is more disturbing than these immediate cuts is the fast approaching insolvency date. this is a critical problem and ignoring the insol van hollen say day of 2024 puts our seniors at risk once again on an even larger scale than today. we cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand. as a physician on behalf of my patients, let's act now to

protect the medicare program and ensure access to quality care for america's seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of layer mare county, colorado. the first settlers arrived in 1828 and they declared the area to be the loveliest spot on earth. the county is named after general william layer mare, an early denver settler. from the farmlands to the majestic mountains, and kind people, it is colorado. mr. gardner: it is the sixth most populous county in the state. while other areas were settled with the prospect of gold, this county was different it atrkted many settlers because of fertile

lands. it started as an agricultural area and continues to flourish in agricultural production today. aside from ag, it has a thriving business in health industry. a strong education system, picture perfect scenery, wonderful locations for outdoor location, and tomorrow-tier research university. in my humble opinion, rocky mountain national park is one of the most beautiful places in the entire country and crown jewel of our national park service. it is my honor to recognize their 150th anniversary on the house floor and acknowledge all it has to offer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, medicare physicians are facing a 28% cut come january 1, 2012, unless this congress acts to stop it. if left alone, these cuts will force many physicians to stop seeing medicare beneficiaries, a move that could harm millions of seniors who are in search of

care. it is incomprehensible that congressional democrats have already cut medicare provider rates as a way to help pay for obamacare, and again they offer to cut provider rates during our debt negotiations in this congress. the providers in my district and across this country have told me if congress continues to cut provider rates, they won't be able to see medicare patients, cure and simple. in fact, the c.m.s. actuary has told us that the cuts to hospitals in obamacare alone will force 15% of these facilities to close. the seniors in my district tell me they can't afford to lose their doctor. let's get a fix to this problem done and done permanently. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, health savings accounts have been shown to lower health care costs and allow americans to have more

control over their money and their health care decisions. recently the bureau of labor statistics reported that 14% of all workers in the private sector now have access to a health savings account. a number of people are h.s.a. type accounts rose to over 11.5 million in january from 10 million a year before and eight million a year before that. but, mr. speaker, health savings accounts are at risk. under the affordable care act passed in this house in march of 2010, by 2014 there will be a phase-in of what's known as the medical loss ratio rules that may eliminate the ability of h.s.a.'s to continue to exist. it's all in the hands of the secretary of health and human services who in the past has not been favorably disposed to h.s.a.'s. governor mitch daniels understands the power of consumer directed health care. governor daniels when he came and talked to our health caucus a little over a year ago talked about his healthy indiana plan. a plan that in his state has allowed him to provide for his state workers health care

benefits that receive a positive approval rating by 94% of his workers and at the same time lowering costs by 11%. this is the type of innovation that the affordable care act should have fostered. instead it stands in the way of this groundbreaking way to deliver health care to our nation's folks. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, as both a practicing physician and member of congress, i have had numerous discussions with patients and constituents regarding how difficult it is for medicare beneficiaries to find access to care. mr. desjarlais: unfortunately this dilemma will overwhelm be exas ber waited if congress fails to act by year's end on the formula physicalans have for treating seniors on medicare. it will be cut by 28% on january 1, 2011 which will drastically

hurt seniors' ability to find medical care. for roughly eight years congress has applied a short-term fix to resolve these cuts. republican doctors are committed to enacting a permanent solution to the flawed s.g.r. formula. democrats have the chance to deal with this issue during the passage of obamacare but instead chose to cut roughly $525 billion for medicare. congress must have the courage to repeal the flawed s.g.r. formula and create a sustainable and reliable payment schedule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, nearly three years ago the president of the united states stood in this chamber and said, we need health care reform to address the crushing cost of health care. mr. fleming: and to strengthen medicare for years to come. well, we got the president's type of health care reform.

seniors had to help pay for it, however, by removing $500 billion, a half a trillion dollars, from medicare in order to subsidize obamacare. guess what? that's made medicare even weaker. today we are trying to find billions of dollars to pay for another temporary fix to medicare reimbursement rates to ensure access by patients to their physicians. last year it cost $19 billion. and it will cost more in future years. obamacare did not bend the cost curve down and as -- as it was promised, it just pushed the issue down the road. republicans are committed to getting the doc fix done and finding a permanent solution. but medicare is running out of money and these fixes are getting more expensive. it's time to repeal obamacare and replace it with reforms that truly strengthen medicare for years to come. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: the pew research center has found negative opinions about news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs. in their poll 66% of those surveyed stated news stories are often inaccurate and 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side over the other. and in a recent gallup poll, americans were asked how much trust and confidence they have in the mass media. a majority, 55%, responded, not very much, or none at all. three years ago i started the media fairness caucus in congress. this caucus helps encourage a free and fair media as our founders intended. the purpose of the caucus is not to sensor or condemn, but to urge the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession and provide the american people with the facts,

balanced stories, and fair coverage of the news. our national media should be held accountable for their performance just like any other institution. we need to remind the media of their profound obligation to provide the american people with the facts not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker i rise today to congratulate the northern illinois university husky football team for winning the 2011 mid american conference championship. last friday the huskies overcame three first-half turnovers and 20-point deficit to defeat the bobcats of ohio university with the last-second field goal as time expired. the incredible win caps off another great season for the northern illinois university tuskies as they finished with a 10-3 overall record and now head

to the godaddy.com bowl on january 8 to play arkansas state. congratulations to the players, coaches, and support staff for all the huskies for another fantastic season. go, huskies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: i rise today to praise the incredible people of oklahoma city and the commupet they are building for our retired military veterans. a recrept study conducted nationwide by usaa and military.com ranked oklahoma city as the number one city for second career for military retirees. its economy is boosted by a great combination of veteran-owned businesses, defense contracting companies, federal workers, and tinker air force base. the study simply proves what oklahomans already know. oklahoma is a great place to live and work. oklahoma city has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the

nation and one of the highest work ethics. it's a great place to raise a family, start a new career, or retire. the vets who have chosen to live there are hardworking individuals with great skills, great work ethic, and love for our country. military retirees make long lasting contributions within their communities and vital to our state's success. my message to veterans across the nation who want to start a new business or new career or find a community that honors vets for their service, you are welcomed to join us in oklahoma city. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to call attention to a looming crisis for our seniors. we are facing the very real prospect of millions of americans losing their access to health care providers because of reductions in medicare payments to physicians due to the flawed sustainable growth s.g.r. formula. mr. speaker, on january 1, 2012,

the s.g.r. formula will trigger a 27.4% pay cut across the board for medicare physician services. according to the a.m.a., my home state of new york, mr. speaker, this cut will amount to $28,000 per physician. ms. buerkle: that loss makes it harder for physicians to pay for office staff, pace, and equipment. which translates, mr. speaker, to decreased access to care for many patients. many physicians have indicated they will no longer accept medicare patients. our seniors, mr. speaker, rely on medicare which they have paid into and have been there for them. mr. speaker, doctors want to provide care to our seniors and we cannot allow medicare payment cuts to prevent doctors from serving all of their patients. our doctors deserve better. our seniors deserve better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from something arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, 10,000 older americans are entering the medicare system every day. so access to quality physicians is more important than ever. the sad fact is we are not paying our medicare providers enough to keep their doors opened, much less accept new patients. in unusual washington fashion past congresses have kicked the can down the road, and if we don't act before the end of the year, physicians will face a 27% cut in their medicare reimbursement. mr. gosar: we need to come together and find a better method to pay our physicians for the long-term, and include it in a properly thought out health care reform. if we continue to allow these flawed policies, medicare patients will suffer and we owe our seniors better. our seniors were made promises by those that came before us serving you today. i'm here to tell you we will keep those promises. taking up this important fix to

health care before it's too late will allow us to continue to be the best nation, a healthy nation we can be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields backment -- back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 479 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 95, house resolution 479, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution

the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 10, to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. under general -- general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nation of a substitute recommended by the committee on rules now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment

printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill is amended -- as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each is such amendment may be offered only in the -- order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for dwib division of the question until the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, during any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, if the in the opinion of the speaker the public interests so warrants, thened speaker oice -- or his designee, after consultation with the minority leader, may reconvene the house at a time other than that previously appointed, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution and notify members accordingly. section 3, clause 3 of rule 29 shall be apply to the availability requirements for a conference report and the accompanying joint statement under clause 8-a-1 of rule 22.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule, house resolution 479. house res. 479 provides a structured rule so that the house may consider house resolution 10, the regulations from executive in need of scrutiny act. the rule gives the house the opportunity to debate a wide array of important, germane amendments offered by members from both sides of the aisle. better known as the reins act, the underlying legislation is a pivotal bill that would change the very way washington does

business. the reins act takes a step back and looks at our current regulatory process where congress passes broad, general laws that lets the executive branch interpret and regulate them how they see fit. h.r. 10 brings back to the vision that our founding fathers had for this nation and for the constitution of congress. i would -- institution of congress. i would assure you that our three branches are co-equals. the way they're designed to be, h.r. 10 would hold congress accountable for setting america's regulatory policies. it makes congress do the work that our founders intended this institution, the first branch, to do, to regulate. mr. speaker, i know that regulations have been a buzz word up here in congress recently and i think it's become so popular, so frequently discussed, because people in washington beltway, within the beltway, are finally starting to wake up to the fact that those

in my home state of florida have been telling me since bmp i ever came here, that regulations matter. the government can't really do much to create jobs or to physically put people back to work. we might wish it was so, but we don't have the magic job form lass on either side of the -- formulas on either side of the aisle that question use it suddenly create millions of jobs for the nearly 9% of americans that are currently out of work. what we can do is create an environment where real job creators, small businesses and private companies can gain access to capital, operate with as much regulatory certainty as possible. unfortunately it's hard to create such an environment when the executive branch is constantly churching out one major regular -- churning out one major regulation after another. according to the congressional research service, during the first two years in office,

federal agencies under the administration leadership of the obama administration pub lished over 175 major rules. these regulations impose tens of billions of dollars of new cost annually on our economy and on consumers. this is the -- on top of the continuing burden of red tape that we're already up against which small business administration estimates to cost $1.75 trillion. $1.75 trillion yearly. the federal register is sort of like the daily newspaper of the federal government. it holds federal agency regulations, proposed rules and public notices, executive orders and proclamations and other presidential documents. according to the national archives -- archive's website, you should read the federal register if, among other things, your business is regulated by the federal government, if

you're an attorney, if your organization attends public hearings, if you apply for grants, if you can are concerned with government actions that affect the environment, health care financial services, exports, education and other major policy issues. reading this recommendation it sounds to me like they're saying, if you're active -- and informed member of the american public, you need to know what's in the federal register. what they don't mention is that the complete federal register today stands at 72,820 pages. that's 145, over 145 reams of paper that contain regulations. to help put that in perspective, that's 275 pounds of paper. and for my floridian friends, that's about three josh freemans, the quarterback of the tampa bay buccs.

within these nearly 73,000 pages of regulations that result in 120 million hours of paperwork burdens for united states business every year, the 2011 federal register costs american employers, the rules that are contained, almost $93 million to compliance costs which equals to about $1.-- 1.8 million jobs. think about everything that job creators could do instead of spending hundreds of millions of hours filling out paperwork for the federal government, all the jobs that could be created. if they weren't spending money complying with regulations that congress -- that congress hasn't even put on them, but regulatory agencies have. h.r. 10 really does rein in these burdens. instead of letting the white house decide what to regular -- what the regulations should be, only allowing congress to disapprove an executive action,

h.r. 10 flips the current system on its head. the reins act says that if the executive branch want toims pose a major rule -- wants to impose a major rule, a rule that's going to cost $100 million or more, then congress, this body, needs to approve the rule before it becomes a force of law. in 2010, according to the congressional research service, executive agencies published over 100 major rules. these basically are rules that went into effect simply because the president said it it's so -- said it's so. the reins act says no more. no more. now, once the executive branch issues a rule, congress now will need to approve it. otherwise it never takes effect. stunning, that's something so simple that congress should make the laws can be so contentious. i've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that if congress just wrote better laws, more precise laws, the executive wouldn't need to

regulate through these rules. the problem is that sometimes the executive branch eaks have shown they're using their regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative process. for example, after it was clear the senate wasn't going to pass cap and trade, which really ought to becaled -- called cap and tax, the e.p.a. went ahead and started regulating greenhouse gases through the rule making process, cutting congress out of the process altogether. this year, the most expensive rule, the greenhouse gas cafe standards are eximented -- estimated to cost $141 billion. that's greater than the entire g.d.p. growth for the united states in the first quarter of 2011. you know, we're not all constitutional scholars. i'm certainly not. but if one thing is clear, congress is the one who makes the laws. it's not congress makes the laws unless they don't make the laws, the -- the laws the president wants them to make, the regulations distribute reins act

takes us back to our basic foundation of government. it says that congress not home doesn't provide the legislative intent but it also provides the legislative oversight as the rule comes back if it's a major rule that's going to cost over $100 million. to our businesses and citizens of this country. it's what we're designed to do. to make tough decisions. that's why i'm so proud to co-sponsor this bill. that's why i'm proud to sponsor this rule and why i'm proud to vote for both the rule and the underlying legislation. with that i encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on this rule, yes on the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york voiced. ms. slaughter: good afternoon, mr. speaker, and i thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, there's a very dangerous and

cynical game being played in the house. americans need jobs now and instead of spending our time on job creation, the majority continues to waste time focusing on bills like this one that make it easier for polluters to spoil our air and water, make it easier for big banks to take the kind of risk that brought on our recession and make it easier for unsafe products in china to poison our children. the majority seems to think that if they repeat their message that big government is destroying jobs enough times it will become true. but economic surveys and economies from the left, right and say it's all a made-up argument. bruce bartlett, an economist who worked in the reagan and first bush administrations writes that, quote, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. in other words, it is a simple

case of political opportunityism, not a serious effort to deal -- tunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. end quote. my friends on the other side of the aisle know this bill won't create jobs and here's how we know. when the bill was considered for amendment, they would block an amendment that simply says, if the independent experts concluded a rule will create jobs it can go into effect without all these time-consuming extra steps. now, why would we want to slow down a rule that could create tens of thousands of jobs? if this bill will create jobs, like the majority claims, what's the harm in saying the bill does not apply when it conflicts with an important goal of creating more jobs for americans who are out of work? the majority cannot have it both ways, mr. speaker. it is has now been a full 336 days since republicans took control of the house and they have yet to put a real jobs bill on the floor. but as of today they've made time for 23 bills that would roll back protections for public

health and safety. they provided ample floor time to defund public radio, to make it easier for felons to carry concealed weapons and to reaffirm our national motto which did not need reaffirming and of course we did want to micromanage light bulbs. why? does the majority really think these are pressing national issues that need our attention when we should focus on jobs? there's no doubt in my mind that in addition to making our workplaces, food and water and airplanes less safe, h.r. 10 would endanger our fragile economic recovery, impeding job creation and having the right. a safeguards against bad behavior is part of what has made this country so economically successful. . we know it was overwhelm after the financial sector was deregulated so much that we had a catastrophic housing crisis and a recession. indeed what regulation there was

basically looked the other way. indeed, in 2008 the bush administration itself estimated that benefits to the economy for major rules outweighed the cost by at least two to one. possibly as much as 12 to one they said. mr. speaker, i would be remiss if i did not explain the violence this bill does not process of passing laws and may be unconstitutional. the process of executing the law's important constitutional principle of separation of powers is in jep pardon here. the practical result of the steps to the regulatory process would be to grind the wheels of government to a halt. our system of government already has the checks and balances built in to make sure that the regulations do what congress says they should. that is why we have oversight committees. after congress writes the laws, there are numerous statutes and executive orders that ensure an

open process as an agency writes the regulations, requiring them to listen to the stakeholders and the public to conduct cost benefit analyses, justify every aspect of the proposed rule. congress also continuously keeps an eye on the executive branch by exercising its authorization, appropriation, and oversight functions. furthermore, entities whose activities are regulated have access to the courts. when congress last considered a nearly identical bill in the 1980's, the now chief justice john roberts who was then an associate white house counsel in the reagan administration, criticized the legislation for, quote, hobbling agency rule making by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules, end quote. he says such a requirement would seem to impose excessive burdens

on regulatory agencies, end quote. justice roberts is right then and right today. congress writes the laws. we rely on professionals and experts, doctors, and engineers, stigs, and so forth to spell out the details of those policies so they can be implemented and enforced in way that makes sense. if this bill is enacted, those decisions will be made by members of congress. with no or little expertise in what they are talking about. in addition, with the staffs we now have, it would be an impossibility for us to be able to do it. americans are sick of the congress' political gamesmanship and the last thing they want to do is extend its reach into vast new areas of our government. but the rules committee's primary responsibility in relation to h.r. 10 is to ensure the integrity of the legislative process in the house. in sending h.r. 10 to the house floor, the committee fails its responsibility.

the shear volume of additional measures the house and senate would be required to consider should h.r. 10 become law is enough to force congress to come back into the capitol and work in shifts. otherwise we would never get it all done. even though president obama's administration's promulgated new rules at a slower rate than the bush administration did in his last two years, that's right, you heard me, fewer regulations upped obama, the 100 or so new major bills on our schedule would mean we would have to take up seven of them a day on every other thursday just to try to get it done. inevitably we could not finish it all and under this ridiculous bill that means we would vote on the rest without debate. the rules committee bothered to hold any hearings on the bill, maybe the majority would realize how drastically h.r. 10 undermines the deliberative process in this house. finally, i want my colleagues to know this rule deems passage of a nongermane amendment that was

written by mr. ryan, the chairman of the budget committee. the republicans made an embarrassing discovery at the rules committee last week. they realized the hundreds of new measures the house would consider under this bill would actually violate both their new cut-go rule and pay-as-you-go statute that democrats put in place. so republicans had a choice. they could either violate the budget rules 100 times every year or just pass an amendment to make these embarrassing violations vanish. which one do you guess they chose? the rule includes the magic amendment that makes all budget violations go away in a big poof. here's the best part, they are using the famous deem and pass procedure which means the mystery amendment will be automatically adopted and the house will never vote on the ryan amendment. i guess what we have seen this year it should not surprise me that the majority blocked our

amendment to strip the special tax breaks from big oil companies supposedly because it was nongermane. that was tuesday. on thursday, they ignored the ger maineness of the rule for this budget and this amendment. but most importantly, mr. speaker, we have had 336 days of republican control of the house with no jobs agenda and it is imperative that we send the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits before congress leaves washington for the holidays. that is why i will amend this rule to require those votes if we defeat the previous question. so i'm urging my colleagues on the other side please stop worrying about your campaign message and start getting the message. america's top priority is job creation. let's defeat this restrictive rule and get back to work on jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to

the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry: i thank my colleague for ruling. i am in favor of the underlying bill and rule. when i talk to small business owners in my district in western north carolina, i hear very clearly that regulations and regulatory uncertainty is in fact costing jobs. it's costing our economy. and it's making sure that unemployment remains high. which is an absurd policy coming out of washington. well, i know from my small business owners that regulations cost jobs. even the small business administration here in washington, d.c., says that federal regulations cost $1.75 billion per year. that costs our economy -- i'm sorry, let me restate that, it's $1.75 trillion a year. that is a major impact on our job creators. we know that regulations cost

jobs. some politicians in washington that don't understandbys think that their regulations create jobs. they're right. they create federal jobs. they create more government employees. they create more people, creating more paperwork for those that are trying to move our economy forward. we need to relieve our small businesses of this regulation -- regulatory hurdle and the challenges that they face. the obama administration admitted one year ago at this time that they had over 4,000 regulations that they were trying to put in place. actively. over 200 of these regulations cost $100 million or more on the economy. sefpble of which will cost -- seven of which will cost $1 billion, a negative impact of $1 billion. these regulations even the obama administration admits costs the economy money.

and if it costs the economy money, they are costing jobs. this is the wrong approach. this regulatory approach. what we need to say is if politicians in washington think these regulations are in fact good, they need to proactively vote on them. when i go home and talk to small business owners, they wonder how these regulations actually go into place. it's faceless bureaucrats working behind desks in washington that put them in place, and their elected officials here in washington may be able to go home an say they are against them but they never had to cast a vote. what the reins act does is say the elected official that is come to washington to represent their folks at home need to proactively put their stamp of approval or disapproval on these regulations. that way we can get this economy going again. that's what we need to be about and i hope we can have bipartisan support on this very important piece of legislation, the reins act. i urge my colleagues to vote for it.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this republican leadership is starting to make me envious of the people of ancient rome. because although nero only fiddled while rome burned, he did something. house republicans on the other hand have brought yet another piece of legislation to this floor that will do absolutely nothing. not a thing. to address the number one issue facing our country, jobs. millions of americans through no fault of their own cannot find work. that means millions of families are struggling to pay their bills, keep their homes, and put enough food on the table. instead of facing this problem head-on, republicans here in washington are turning a blind eye to the needs of our neighbors. you would think there was all

the recesses we take around here these days, my republican friends would hear from their constituents about the still struggling economy. i know that's what i hear about from the people of massachusetts. there are two things that we can and must do before we break for yet another holiday recess, extend the payroll tax cut and extend unemployment insurance. by refusing to bring the payroll tax cut to the floor, the republicans are risking tax relief for 160 million americans, while protecting massive tax cuts for 300,000 people making more than $1 million per year. extending or expanding payroll tax cut would put $1,500 into the pockets of the typical middle class family. hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. even mitt romney has come out in support of extending the payroll tax cut. if he could take a position, mr. speaker, i would hope the house republicans could do the same. every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of $1.52 in economic

growth. again, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk unless we act. so instead of those simple effective measures to improve our economy and spur job creation, we have before us yet another waste of time. it is time to put the people of this country first. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and i urge them to vote against the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. 7 mr. nugent: continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the members of the house who listen to the voices have been raised about the jobs crisis in our country. these voices are speaking loud and clear. we should also listen to the

quiet voices of desperation of so many americans who will sit down this friday night to try to pay their bills and find they have 70 cents' worth of income for every $1 of blills. or the americans who retired a few years ago and thought they were set for the rest of their lives but are now looking at the want ads every day because they think they have to get a job to continue to pay their bills and retirement. or the quiet anxious voices of small business owners that are thinking that maybe this friday will be the last friday they keep their business open and they shut for good. these are the voices that should be heard in this country and they are not being heard by this majority. 89 days ago the president of the united states came to this chamber and proposed four good ideas to put americans back to work. build more roads and bridges and schools to put construction workers back to work. we haven't taken a vote on that.

cut taxes of small business people that hire people in the private sector. we haven't had time to take a vote on that. take teachers and police officers and firefighters have been taken off the job because this economic disaster at the state and local level and put them back in the classroom, put them back on the job. the majority hasn't had time to vote on that. and finally, let's avoid a tax increase of $1,000 a year or more on middle class families that's coming january 1, in 25 days. january 1. but the majority hasn't had time to vote on that. we do have time today to vote on the temporary bankruptcy judgeship extension act of 2011. judgeship extension act of 2011. this is entirely appropriate.