imits general solicitation and enhances s.e.c. rulemaking authority. but fortunately, as i said, the basic architecture of the sburel access to capital act, crowdfunding, that bipartisan measure we took through committee markup and house floor action is preserved. although i am disappointed by the ill conceived and burdensome changes within the crowdfunding title of this bill, i stand committed to working across the aisle to make sure that we fix this after the president signs it. and that's what we intend to do. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: i salute mr. mchenry, my friend from north carolina, for his work on this bill. i think it's probably worth talking more about crowd funding, appreciate his view. we are talking about marketing done at retail investors, up to $10,000 more. mr. mchenry called the senate

activity ill-conceived and burdensome. we are at the nexus here of potentially un-- unsophisticated investors and people who see an opportunity. i would remind mr. mchenry in citing a charitable background for this bill, when you give to a charity, you know you are not getting your money back. when you invest in a company, you hoper -- you hope you're getting your money back. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: i have the right to close. i would ask the gentleman from connecticut to proceed and then we will -- i think we have -- could i inquire to the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has two minutes remaining. mr. bachus: two minutes. i'll allow the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: excuse me. 10 minutes. two minutes for alabama, 10

minutes for connecticut. mr. bachus: i'm glad this isn't football. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. let me again reiterate my thanks to chairman bachus, to all the members of the financial services committee who worked hard on this bill. i think we have had a lot of good debate around very real and important issues. unusual for this institution. we have actually managed to keep the ideology and the barbs out of it. i'm appreciative of that. i know that the american people are as well. i appreciate coming as i do from a district and a state that will rise or fall on our ability to innovate, to grow small businesses into real world beaters, to have a financial services sector which is vibrant and innovative but safe. i very much appreciate the

intent of this legislation. we had good support from both sides of the aisle. the president is supportive. we heard from industry associations this was a good thing. and so with that i encourage all of the members of this body to support this legislation. thank again the chairman and the ranking member of the committee and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut yields back his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, madam speaker. i yield such time as i may consume. balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: during this debate we focused on crowd funding, but i think we are all in agreement that this bill is a great improvement. and we will revisit that. but that shouldn't distract from the fact this is a maimor piece of legislation that will cause -- major piece of legislation that will cause a great deal of innovation, new products and services. in my revised remarks which i

intend to submit in the next week i'll highlight biomedical research which we think the potential to address some diseases that are rare diseases or degenerative conditions will really receive a boost from this. with that i yield -- i commend all our members and we come together here and we have accomplished great things. a lot of the senate -- the senate, house, and administration. i yield to the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, the proposals contained in the jobs act are not political or partisan as been mentioned. they come from the small business community in districts like mine where i meet regularly with local employers who tell me that accessing capital is the hardest part of enduring the current recession. many of these changes in this bill have bipartisan backing and have been endorsed by members of the president's council on jobs and economic

competitiveness. today's legislation will enable america's start-up companies the job engines of our economy to access the equity markets not just the debt markets. this is a bill that will give investors an emerging growing -- and emerging growing companies perhaps a future google, apple, or home depot, the opportunity to reach investors cut through the red tape and overcome the financial barriers to success. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3606. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: madam speaker, i would request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. bachus: i demand the yeas

and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 596, resolved, that the clerk of the house of representatives

request the senate to return to the house the bill h.r. 5, entitled an act to improve patient access to health care services, and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burdens and liabilities it places on the health care delivery system. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 2038, an act to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules call up house resolution 595 and ask

for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 121, house resolution 495 -- 595, 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. 3309, to amend the communications act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the federal communications commission. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a

substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on

any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the speaker may appoint members to perform duties of the chair for the duration of the period from march 29, 2012 through april 16, 2012 as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from florida, mr. hastings. pending which i i yield myself such time as i may consume. for the purpose of this resolution all time yielded is for the -- for debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: madam speaker, i

ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. webster: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, house resolution 595 provides for the structured rule for consideration of h.r. 3309, the federal communications commission's process reform act of 2012. the rule makes 10 amendments of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in order. of these eight are democrat sponsored amendments and two are republican sponsored amendments. as noted in the subcommittee ranking member during the rules committee meeting on this last night, h.r. 3309 has come to the floor under the regular order. the energy and commerce subcommittee and communications technology held an oversight hearing and subsequently a legislative hearing on the federal communications process reform.

the subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an open markup and favorable reporting of the bill to full committee on november 16, 2011. on march 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the bill favorably reported to the house. in 2010 the communication and technology industry invested $66 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure and $3 billion more in 2009. the new products and services are innovated by a sector of our in-- are innovated by this sector of this almost daily business. with the innovation comes high quality jobs even marked improvements for every american's quality of life. as a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this important economic engine. the f.c.c. should strive to be on the most open and transparent agency in federal government and any intervention into the marketplace should be

the result of rigorous analysis demonstrating the need for government regulation. the federal communication commission process reform act would change the process the f.c.c. must follow in issuing regulations and limit the agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions. the legislation would require the f.c.c. to be more transparent and methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communication marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties and in reviewing transactions. customers, small businesses, and outside beltway stakeholders in particular do not have the regulatory lawyers needed to rush review of proceedings. the only way to get their input is to give them time to provide feedback on well delineated proposals. before it starts intervening, the f.c.c. should make sure it has a full understanding of the

state of competition and current technologies. by requiring the f.c.c. to be more transparent, to find a market failure before proposing regulation, and conduct cost benefit analysis before adopting rules, h.r. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and i novation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in this economy. in particular, the bill prohibits the f.c.c. from coercing parties to accept concessions such as network neutrality obligations. such conditions are typically unregulated -- unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements the f.c.c. otherwise lacks the policy, justification, or legal authority to impose. they also chill transaction that is might otherwise advance the economy and impose unnecessary costs on businesses. the bill requires the f.c.c. to

survey the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before proposing new rules which would increase costs for customers and businesses, to establish the specific text of proposed rules before their consideration. so the public and industry know what is being considered and have adequate information to put -- provide input. . to identify a market failure or customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting an economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million. to set aside the clock an schedules for issuing decision -- for decisions to report to congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry know when issues

will be recovered an to create performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of programs that cost more than $100 million. these proposals -- these proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an attempt to cripple the f.c.c. or as some opponents of the legislation have claimed. instead, this legislation seeks to put forth forth and put back the bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that's provided high tech innovation that come with it despite the economic downturn. once again, madam speaker, i rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation that -- and encourage my colleagues to society yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from florida, mr.

hastings. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding time to me an i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this rule provides for consideration--- of h.r. 3309 the federal communications reform act. there may be beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the f.c.c.'s processes more transparent an more efficient. i do suggest that the f.c.c. has made great strides in this regard under the leadership of chairman general cousekey and certainly more can be done. but the fact remains that my friends on the other side of -- chairman janikowski and certainly more can be done. but the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the isle still have to walk the walk and talk the talk. last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and

colleague, congresswoman eshoo, who -- to require f.c.c. disclosure of spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee, but made in order to go forward today. recent supreme court rulings, especially the citizens united case, have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming to influence the electoral process. these individuals, organizations, and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, an other media. unfortunately, americans do not yet have the right to know who is paying for these efforts. under current law, americans have no way of knowing whether

an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate, or the bill. there's no way to run a country. that's no way to hold an election. and that's no way to run a government. since citizens united, our government is less like a democracy and more like a mystery. i firmly support the eshoo amendment and ask all our colleagues to do so. it aims to provide some clues by requiring the disclosure of any individual or corporation who contributes $10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an election cycle.

this amendment is modeled after the disclose act, sponsored by my friend and colleague congressman chris van hollen, of which i'm a proud co-sponsor. both of these issues -- both of these measures educate voters by disclosing who is donating money to influence the electoral process. it is as simple as that. transparency, accountability, and democracy. yet some of my republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as to why the american people will want to know who is trying to influence them. last night in the rules committee, my good friend from georgia mr. woodall was indicating his notions regarding this and i said to him what i say to all our colleagues and all americans,

that the day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know if they are opposed to you, who they are. so the question remains, why do some republicans oppose these efforts now? madam speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that's some republicans have in favor of wealth -- of the wealthiest americans. when they're not trying to eviscerate social safety net programs, as i suggest in the rules committee in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed budget that does just that, to make room for tax cuts for the well off in our society. it appears that republicans are eager to allow the richest americans to hijack the electoral process. because that is about to happen and it is and will be a hijacking. when vast sums of money are

used to influence the democratic process, the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. and when that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving the bus, the train, the plane and the rest of us do not know where the stops are. this amendment, along with the disclose act and similar efforts, aims to provide americans with the basics of who is spending how much on what. it does in the impose any new obligations on broadcasters or providers. it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for inaccurate information. and it does not take action with respect to posting this information online. this is a simple disclosure requirement. it benefits all americans. it is good for our democracyful

quite frankly, i think that a commendable thing occurs when many of the amendments are made in order and in this particular instance, i'm especially pleased that my colleagues made the eshoo amendment in order and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. webster. mr. webster: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, my good friend, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to urge members to vote against the previous question. why would we do that? because we need to invest in america's crumbling

infrastructure and the republicans are totally incapable of producing a transportation bill. here's a little bit of review of history. february 8, 2011, chairman micah, we'll have a bill by -- chairman my ka, we'll have a bill -- chairman mie ka, we'll have a -- chairman mica, we'll have a bill by august. fast forward, we'll have one extension -- they didn't get it done by august. then in november, house to pass highway bill. that was november of 2011, it's 2012. now the republicans are saying they need another 90 days to get agreement in their own caucus. they're never going to get agreement. there are 80 members of the republican caucus who believe there is no federal interest. get this, no federal interest in a national transportation system. it should devolve to the 50 states, back to the good old days when kansas built a

turnpike and oklahoma didn't an the cars were launched off the end of the turnpike into a farmer's field for another five years until kansas finally got around to it. let's go back to those good ole days. they also say this won't create jobs, well, guess what, transportation investment is the best way to create made in america jobs. transit equipment, made in america. steel, made in america. construction jobs, by americans, for americans, for our future. they can't get it done. no more 90-stayday extensions. they've got the throttle on the floor and they're spinning doughnuts but they've run out of gas. so it's time to act. what we immediate to do is defeat the previous question, bring up the bipartisan senate-passed transportation bill which half of the republican senators, some of the members of the flat earth society even voted for. we've got the votes on this

side of the isle, let's pass it and put america back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. webster. mr. webster: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to inquire if the gentleman from florida has more speakers? i'm prepared to close. mr. hastings: i appreciate my colleague for asking. i was hoping that mr. bishop from new york would be here but in light of the fact that he is not, i'm prepared to close. mr. webster: i reserve my time. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as he may consume. if mr. bishop does arrive, perhaps i would use some time to yield to him. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: we know this legislation is never going to pass the senate. so this exercise remains just that, an exercise. republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government. but this bill will require the

f.c.c. to hire 20 additional staff at a cost of $26 million over five years, just to handle all the additional work created. rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure investments and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to go beyond this chamber. rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society an corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on the political process. and rather than work with democrats to craft comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the house an the senate, republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than

allow a compromise measure to live. i would say that i'm appalled, madam speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time around here. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule, it will bring up h.r. 14 the house companion to the bipartisan senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal and i will continue closing afterwards, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i thank mr. hastings for yielding and apologize for my tardy arrival on the floor. as yogi berra once said, it's

deja vu all over again. here we are a week later and we still have not addressed the eminent -- imminent expiration of our highway program. as we witnessed six weeks ago, we last night saw the inevitable result of the republican mantra, my way or the highway. last night, republicans were forced to remove from floor consideration their short-term extension because they -- in part because they refused to reach out to their democratic colleagues to get anything done. meanwhile, i have sponsored the senate bill, called h.r. 14 in the house, a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and helps the states. i am proud to be part of this, rather than the republican message this week of tearing down medicare and protecting the 1% at the expense of middle class families. as of today, house republicans have yet to put forward a

credible highway re-authorization that puts america back to work. their only attempt, h.r. 7, was called the worst highway bill ever by the united states department of transportation secretary lahood a former republican member of this body. it was drafted in the dark of night, without democratic input. removed transit and the transit guarantee from the highway trust fund and cornt attract single democratic vote nor a vorte -- nor a majority of republican votes. map passed in the senate with a bipartisan vote and is fully paid for, something house republicans seem unable to come close to. the senate has estimated that map 21 will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million more jobs during a weak economic recovery looking for a jump start, this is the kind of bill we need to be passing and passing as quickly as we possibly can. .

isman 21 the silver bullet to our sprorgs needs? no. but there is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure needs. we need to get a bill passed. man 21, h.r. 14 -- m.a.p. 21, h.r. 14, is the path forward. i urge my colleagues to bring the bill to the floor so we can vote for it in a bipartisan fashion, accepted it to the president. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. hastings: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida exmr. hastings. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule. i yb. -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. webster. mr. webster: thank you, madam speaker. get back to the issue at hand. this is not necessarily a highway bill. it is -- but it does talk about a highway. much faster than the ones we

drive on. it's hard to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless internet service, hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallway without some sort of wireless device that they are communicating with others on. and they are usually their hands are glued to it. communication and technology, innovations over the past several years have made us a more connected world. in some instances the new global connectedness has brought us even closer together. allowing us to share its similarities and differences between our peers and distant cultures. it has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the greatest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. we want our innovations to continue. innovating and inventors to keep inventing. in the communication and technology fields, they have and they continue to amaze us

with new breakthroughs every day. this bill simply puts back -- pulls back the curtain on the f.c.c., the agency charged with regulating the communications sector. it asks them to institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on their actions. it requires the commission to rigorously examine the marketplace before intervening, give increased time for public input and comment, and increase traps while improving new rules and amendments. these process reforms are simply good government and should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion. i ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: most respectfully

i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on the adoption of house resolution 595, if ordered, suspend the rules with regard to h.r. 3606, and suspension of the rules with regard to h.r. 32 8 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 182. the yeas have it. the previous question is ordered. the house will come to order. the chair would ask all those present to rise for the purpose

of a moment of silence. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. the chair asks that the house shall observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave and men and women in uniform who have given their lives in service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families and all who serve in our armed forces and their families.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 595. those in favor say aye. suppose opposed say no. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 177. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3606 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 380, the nays are 41. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3298, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3298, a bill to establish the position of special assistant for veterans affairs in the department of housing and urban development an for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirm -- affirmative, the rule

russspened -- mr. green: on behalf of our veten -- veterans across the length an breadth of american, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 414, the nays are 5. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the

bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will please come to order. members will exit their well and take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to a question of personal privilege. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has been made of a valid basis for the gentlewoman's point of personal privilege. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one hour. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i rise today to address an attack on my integrity and my reputation. last week, representative daryl issa, the chairman of the committee on oversight and government reform, on which i have served for many years, gave an interview to an newspaper in san diego. -- to a newspaper in san diego. the story was published on

march 21 and it quoted the gentleman as accusing me of lying, knowingly and intentionally. during a hearing that was held before the oversight committee on february 16. that hearing received a significant amount of public attention because it addressed the issue of insurance for reproductive health care yet included no witness testifying on behalf of the tens of millions of women across this country who seek access to coverage for reproductive health and contraception. i certainly understand that numbers -- members on both sides of the aisle have different viewpoints on this issue. and i'm not here to discuss the underlying policy differences we may have. today, i ask that mr. sigh -- from mr. issa the same commitment i ask of myself, to

always strive to hear all sides of a debate without resorting to name calling or attacks on the personal integrity of others. even when we disagree with what others might say, we have an obligation to listen to them and respect their viewpoints. i am sure there are some who will accuse me of using these remarks to merely revisit the contraception issue. to the contrary, i am responding to statements published just last week by the gentleman from california. his arguments regarding my actions. in his recent interview on the hearing, mr. issa said this, to be absolutely clear, and i quote, carolyn maloney then made the famous statement,

where are the women? that was an outright lie and she knew it when she said it. end quote. first of all, i would like to point out that what i actually offered was an outright question. i asked it as i sat there looking directly at an all-male panel, the panel you see in this now-famous picture. it is a picture that i believe is worth a thousand words. and as i look at this picture again, my question is as pertinent and legitimate today as it was back then. look at this picture and tell me, where are the women. if you can point to one woman on this first panel, then i will happily withdraw and offer my apologies to mr. issa. just to make sure we have my question in context, let me

repeat the remarks i made that morning that mr. issa and some found so objectionable. i said, and i quote, what i want to know is where are the women? i look at this panel and i don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across this country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning and contraception. where are the women? end quote. i still maintain, without fear of any contradiction, there is no one on this panel who is a woman, or who represents the tens of millions of women who want and need insurance basic coverage for family planning. now if mr. issa believes or

tries to argue that that statement is somehow false because there were two women witnesses who appeared later that day on a second and separate panel, i would draw his attention to the fact that those witnesses were not there to represent the woman's point of view that is upheld primarily by the democratic party on this particular issue. those republican appointed witnesses were there only to represent the interests of institutions. so even even in surveying both panels i don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across this country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning. and in conclusion i would like to say, mr. speaker, rising or

raising a point of personal privilege is sometimes accompanied by a call for a personal apology. earlier today mr. issa apologized to me and he sent me this letter just an hour or two ago. i am encouraged by his actions and i accept his apology. in the fallout of that unfortunate hearing, women were called far worse than liers -- liars. i know what i said that day and i know it to be true. but i do think the democratic witness, sandra fluke, and the women of america, are owed an apology. an apology for denying them a voice, an apology for denying them a seat at the table. it was wrong then and it is wrong each time that it happens. and it is especially wrong when

women's health, women's lives, and women's rights are being discussed. and to cavalierly dismiss or deny that fact does greater damage to the fabric of democracy than words can ever redress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which a vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. if members would please take their conversations from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4239, and provide an extension of the federal-aid highway safety, motor carry-r carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund, pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4239, a bill to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety,

transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund, pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. first, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4239, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the committee on ways and means be included in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mica: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you. my colleagues, mr. speaker, this is a 60-day extension that has been agreed to by our leadership and negotiated with the other side of the aisle. i believe it will ensure the surface transportation programs at the department of transportation will continue to function and that we can continue programs across the country, ensure our men and women stay in jobs at such a difficult time with our economy , again, needing some reliability and transportation programs from the federal level. with that i urge a yes vote on h.r. 4239 as amended, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized.

mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 4239. this legislation is yet another example of the republican leadership's my way or the highway approach to legislating. there is no -- there was no consideration, consultation with anyone on this side of the aisle prior to this particular measure being introduced and scheduled for consideration. the exextension is unduly long and it ignores the fact that we do have a solution in hand in the form of a bipartisan surface transportation bill which passed the other body the week before last. with more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers out of work, enough with the political games. with tens of millions more seeking a better life, it is far past time to stop the

brinksmanship. as we approach the start of the construction season, we need to come together to pass a highway bill that will improve our infrastructure, and most importantly, create jobs. instead, republicans in the house continue their myway or the highway approach that is now leading to a kick the can down the road extension. the other body has shown us the way. they passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill called m.a.p. 21 with a vote of 74-22, with senators boxer and inhofe leading the way across the ideological spectrum. the simple solution would be to take up that bill and pass it now. the president is prepared to sign it into law. yet instead we have before us another extension premised on the perverse notion that the republican leadership will over the next 60 days garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass h.r. 7. the five-year bill reported by

the transportation and infrastructure committee. that committee reported h.r. 7 on february 13, the rules committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on february 15. that was almost six weeks ago. six weeks ago. during that time the republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its members to pass that bill. they do not have 218 votes. and they know it. so the question is, the question is, what difference do they hope to achieve over the next eight weeks if they were un-- that they were unable to achieve over the past six weeks? not much in my view. because the right wing of their party is holding h.r. 7 hostage to their ideological jihad that the federal government has no business in supporting a national transportation system. on february 25 -- 22, 1955,

president dwight eisenhower stated, and i quote, our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. the ceaseless flow of information throughout the republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected highways, crisscrossing the country, and joining at our national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and south, end quote. now, promoted by a republican president and passed by a democratic controlled congress, america sought greatness as it embarked on the construction of the interstate highway system in 1956. and america achieved it. creating a transportation system that was once the envy of the world. yet h.r. 7 represents a full-scale retreat from that dynamic vision set forth 56 years ago. it mortgages america's future at subprime rates. it bankrupts the highway trust

fund, and endangers the future and long-term integrity of transportation programs. it destroys american jobs at a time when legions of americans are desperately seeking work and trying to make ends meet. it is the wrong direction for america. this day should be a day of glory. it should be a day when this body displays the courage and conviction necessary to address the pressing transportation needs of this nation. instead, it is a day of shame. it is a day when we are about to turn back the clock nearly a half century on america's greatness and incredible work we have done to grow our nation, to build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market. unlike the house bill which slashes funding and destroys 550,000 jobs, the other body's bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. under the senate bill the states would receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than the house bill over the course of

two years. the senate bill also eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law by american requirements. loopholes being exploited by foreign competitors like china who are stealing american jobs. m.a.p. 21, that's the senate bill, includes critical elements of my buy america bill, the invest in america jobs act, and eliminates these loopholes to give american workers a fair shot. the senate bill also does not contain poison pills like the house bill does such as provisions to strip osha protections for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers. the senate bill is not the bill i would have written, but it is a fair, bipartisan compromise, a word some in this body don't like to hear, especially on the other side, but a word that's necessary for legislating. it will provide the certainty that states need to invest and proceed with their plans long on the books. so again i call upon the republican leadership to

schedule that bill for consideration by this body now. but in the spirit of compromise, again a word that's necessary in this body, i would remind the republicans it is a word in the dictionary, it is a word that americans use daily. and i might consider supporting such a shorter extension than what it being -- than what is being proposed today. not this lavish 6 o day, extension but rather one that keeps our noses to the grindstone and instills a sense of urgency this matter deserves. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: yielding myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: mr. speaker, my colleagues, let's deal with just a few facts. first of all, the fact is that this would be the ninth extension. the fact is that the democrats on the other side of the aisle when they controlled the entire house of representatives, the

united states senate, the other body, and a huge majority, and the white house, they did six extensions. that's the first fact. the second fact is that the folks from the other side of the aisle when they controlled it, they weren't even able to get a bill out of some subcommittee to full committee. we passed it in committee and we have gotten it this far to the floor. they did not pass it with huge majorities. let's just deal with the facts. the facts are, on june 17, 2009, after my cooperating with the previous chair on the other side of the aisle, to go forward with a long-term bill, it was president obama who sent then secretary ray lahood to tell us that they were going to kill a six-year bill that we

had agreed on to move forward that they couldn't even get out of committee to an 18-month ex tension. these -- extension. these are facts, and the fact is that they had 6,300 earmarks in the last bill, and they were opened to earmarks in the bill that they were about to propose. this bill is being brought forward without tax increases, responsibly funded, with dramatic reforms, and, again, devolving to the states and local governments who actually build these projects, the streamlining and other financial opportunities that they can take advantage of. . the part about brank you wanting the trust fund, let's -- about bankrupting the trust fund, let's deal with facts. the facts are, the deal

proposed by the other body is a two-year deal and the trust fund money expires in 18 months. that's not responsible. the bill we brought out has a pay-for. the comments that we're slashing, we're continuing at current levels. it's $52 billion for five years, do the math, it's $260 billion. we are increasing spending at a time we shouldn't be increasing spending but maintaining the current level. they count no increase as a cut. that's the kind of math that's going on here. i came to the floor because there was a bipartisan agreement between the leadership of the house and the senate to move forward because we have to get people to work. came here and this is my third extension. i have had the honor and privilege of chairing the committee for about 14 months

now and i have cooperated with the other side, including holding extensive hearings, the gentleman who just spoke, mr. hay hall -- rahall, the first in his district, all the way to the west coast, hearings out in the feel and hear in -- here in washington to try to develop legislation that cowl get the job done and that we can do more with even the same amount of money and put people to work at a time in our country's history. so those are the facts and i reserve the balance of my time. actually, let me yield to mr. duncan, the chair of the subcommittee, three, four minutes if he'd like. four minutes. how much time do we have before we do that? the speaker pro tempore: 15 minutes. mr. mica: four or five.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership of the committee. mr. duncan: h.r. 2389 extends the funding at levels consistent with the levels passed last november. this extension is clean and does not add policy provisions. without this extension, mr. speaker, these programs are set to expire this saturday. this legislation will allow the highway and transit programs to continue to -- continue to operate as the spring construction season kicks off. during this two-month extension, we fully expect the house to pass h.r. 7, the american energy and infrastructure jobs act of to 12 and conference this bill with the senate's 18-month re-authorization bill. h.r. 7, as chairman mica noted, is a five-year re-authorization

bill that provides the long-term funding at current levels. it provides predictability that the states and local tais need and requested to plan -- localities need and requested to plan major projects in their districts. additionally, h.r. 7 eliminates or would eliminate wasteful federal programs and put important decision-making power back in the hands of the states. there's no reason to have a bureaucrat in washington dictate chg projects should be funded in my home state of tennessee or other states. federal aid transportation projects around the nation are sitting idle because of inefficient and unnecessary project review requirements. h.r. 7 goes the extra mile by streamlining the project review process and eliminating scoring of unnecessary federal requirements. my constituents in the second district of tennessee and throughout this nation ant a more efficient and smarter

process for investing our federal transportation dollars and h.r. 7 would accomplish that by doing more with less. with knee -- we need to speed up these highway projects, the last two studies by the federal highway officials have estimated it takes 13 years, one said 13 years, one said 15 years from conception to completion. all these other developed nations around the world are doing these projects in half or a third of the time we are. we've got to speed things up to become more globally competitive. when congress extend -- sends h.r. to the president, it will be considered the signature jobs bill americans have been waiting for congress to pass. just this week, "time" magazine has a cover which describes our recovery as "wimpy." yesterday, the chairman of the federal reserve board said that the job market continues to remain weak. this bill, h.r. 7, if we can pass it, will create millions of jobs for hardworking americans right here in the

united states, not in chi in or india, and will leave a lasting impact of tangible improvements. by passing the long-term re-authorization bill that the business community and state and local officials across this country want, americans will be able to see their tax dollars going toward rebuilding and strengthening our nation's highways, bridges and transit systems. in addition, we need and people all over this country want us to stop rebuilding other countries and start doing what we need, rebuilding our own country and putting our own citizens first once again. i urge my colleagues to pass this brief two-month extension so the house can continue to work and then pass h.r. 7, the long-term re-authorization reform bill that this country needs. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time to chairman mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman refrom florida reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized.

mr. rahall: i yield four minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee on transit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. defazio: the republicans want another 60 days, or 90 days to spin doughnuts on their side of the aisle. the senate, the most dysfunctional previous to this leadership, legislative body in the land, has passed a bill, a two-year bill, with reforms and streamlining, with half of the republican senators including some members of the flat earth caucus voting for it. 74 votes in the senate, nothing gets 74 votes in the senate. but you're refusing to bring that bill up because we might get something tone around here,

so how about another 60 days to spin your wheels. there was a little bit of history, let's have a little history here. february 8 20 11, we'll have a surface transportation bill by the august recess. that was, what, 2011. oops, well, then 2011, august, chairman mica, i will agree to one additional highway program extension. oops, he's asking for another, and another and today yet another. then spin forward quickly to november 20 11, speaker boehner, house will pass a highway bill this year. that was last year. then february 1, 2012, here's the problem. they've got a bunch of people on their side who hate government so much they're willing to destroy the national transportation program to kill it. we are not making the claim, speaker boehner, that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates

jobs. they hate government so much that they will say investment by the government in building a national transportation system and maintaining it and rebilling it with made in america requirements does not create jobs. why would he say that? because they have 80 people on their side of the aisle who do not believe we should have a national transportation plan or policy. they're willing to let our roads, bridges, and highways crumble. this is predwight david eisenhower, republican president, national highway program. this is the brand, spifffi new kansas turnpike that ended in this farmer's field. this went on for years because oklahoma didn't build their section. they want to go back to those days. so the port of los angeles and the people of southern california should pay for everything that relates to getting freight in and out of l.a., doesn't affect the rest

of the country. or the port of seattle or other ports. other companies get -- other countries get it. even countries like britain. despite what the speaker said to the flat earth caucus, it does create jobs and investment. we need to move forward. they say, no problem, another temporary delay while we get our act together on our side of the aisle. again, we already heard the statement only one more temporary extension, that was about nine months ago and we're finding now that actually the delays are costing jobs. the uncertainty costs jobs. states can't make commitments for major projects and investments if they don't know if there's going to be federal money there in 90 days. 60 days, i forgot. they're going to plan a long-term project that can last 60 days? i don't think. so so north carolina secretary of transportation said the delays cost 40,000 jobs.

nevada, 4,000 jobs, maryland, 4,000 jobs, michigan, 3,500 jobs. add it up across the country. even use the low numbers. we're talking tens of thousands of job opportunities lost because they can't get their act together. just let us vote. on the senate bill. that's all we're asking. i mean, i think there might be a few people on your side of the aisle who would agree with their republican colleagues in the senate and support it and i can guarantee we'd get almost every democrat on this side of the aisle to vote for it. you can't even get your own people to vote for your own bill. you have to pretend it won't create jobs. paul ryan has now proposed in the budget, which we're going to vote on next that we should decrease funding in transportation by 35% but you're saying over there you want to continue the current level. we had better get it together. if you're going to support the ryan budget, you've just voted to cut transportation beginning october 1 by 35%. that's about half a million

jobs but what the heck. you guys hate government so much, you hate america so much, that you won't do what's necessary to put this country back together. to rebuild the infrastructure that was given to us by democrats and republicans alike for more than half a century, never in a partisan way. this was the first expert -- experiment, first attempt to pass a totally partisan bill. and you failed on your own side of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds members to address their comments directly to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the chair of the rail subcommittee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. shuster: i thank the chairman. listening to the last speaker, i believe that the other side of the aisle has got a case of amnesia. because i was here in 2007 and 2011 when they had the majority

in the house, the majority in the senate and the president sis -- presidency. they did nothing. that's not true, the gentleman from oregon, he was chairman of the highway subcommittee and we passed a bill by voice vote out of the subcommittee, a democratic version, voice vote. that means it came out of subcommittee in a bipartisan way. there was a lot in that bill i didn't like but it was probably what the gentleman, the last speaker and the majority party wanted to do, expand government control of the highway system. expand the decision making process to the bureaucrats in washington instofede allowing the people in the states to make more of those decisions. so it's startling to me to hear the criticism and insults hurled at our side of the aisle. i do take offense to the fact that he said we hate america. we love america. we love the american people and the wisdom of the american people and the wisdom of those in state government to make decisions also.

now i'm not one that wants to -- i believe there is a national role in the transportation system in this country. it's a national policy. it's based on our founding. it's our history. we've always been part of this national system. i want to pass a bill, a five-year bill, i don't believe my colleagues have gone home and listened to their directors and people who build roads and sell equipment. they want a five year bill. they do not want a two-year bill because they won't make decisions on expanding their businesses, buying equipment, hiring people on an 18-month bill and oh, by the way, by the time we pass it if we pass the senate bill, it would be a 17-month or 16-month bill. it's just another extension. it doesn't have reforms in it. our bill does reform. it will allow the $260 billion to be spent faster. anybody that's been in business, anybody that's been in business and had to deal with the day in and day out knows that time is money.

if it takes 14 years to 15 years to build a highway, versus seven or eight, that's going to cost us more mup. that's why this five-year bill is a common sense bill and we need to pass it. but i've come to the floor today, not to debate the five-year bill because i believe it's the best way to go, but i've come here to support the bipartisan agreement, i thought it was a bipartisan agreement, i guess we'll find out shortly a bipartisan agreement for a 60-day clean extension to give us the time to move forward and put a sensible, common sense, i should say, bill on the floor that will encourage growth in america. it will encourage people to hire and invest in their businesses when they're billing roads and bridges in this country, and failing to pass this extension is really not an option so i hope that my friends will get behind this extension and pass it so that we can work to pass a bill that makes a lot of sense and that is h.r. 7 that will help to create jobs. again, i need to remind my

colleagues if they're watching this, or colleagues in the chamber, 2007 to 2011, our democratic colleagues controlled both branches of government, both houses of congress, did not pass a highway bill. they passed a stimulus bill that didn't work, that had only 8% of it went to highway and infrastructure projects, which we as republicans offered an alternative, half of that, half the amount of money the democrats passed and half of that going to rebuilding infrastructure. if they truly cared about rebuilding the infrastructure in this country, they would have passed a highway bill in 2007 to 2008 -- excuse me, 2007 to 2011, but they failed to do it an now they've come to the floor to criticize our side and we worked very, very hard, chairman mica put together a bill that really does do reform, significant reform. i don't know why the other side resists reform when we can spend money quicker, we can get that money out there and rebuild the roads and bridges we need today.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 8 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from west virginia's time, and the gentleman from florida has seven minutes. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee on railroads. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. rahall, for your leadership on this transportation bill. you can fool people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. when president barack obama came to the floor he mentioned to the house, you know, republicans used to like to build some roads. you know, it is a sad day of affairs in this house of representatives, and really it's a sad day as far as the

committee is concerned because we used to have a process that was bipartisan. we worked together. well, you know, we can't pass a transportation bill, and the only thing we passed was a new bridge for minnesota, and we had to transfer 30 acres of land in one individual congressional district, but the leadership of the transportation committee of this house of representatives can't find floor time to debate a piece of legislation that would create and maintain millions of good-paying jobs for hardworking americans. republicans refuse to work with democrats in crafting a transportation re-authorization bill that has cost us the opportunity to help the traveling public. sadly, when our unemployment rate remains at 9% and adequate funding six years surface

transportation re-authorization bill is critical. what our country needs is a surface transportation bill. but let me be clear. we don't need a five-year bill with two-year money. we don't need a five-year bill with two-year money. transportation and infrastructure funding is absolutely critical to our nation. we know for every $1 billion we spend it generates 44,000 permanent jobs. we need and deserve a long-term transportation bill, but the tea party members won't be happy until we are riding horses on dirt roads again. we need to pass the senate transportation re-authorization bill and add some sanity to this process and send the bill to the president that actually helps the traveling public and put the american people back to work. i yield back the balance of my

time. to you, mr. rahall, and thank you, again, for your leadership on the transportation committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, might i inquire as to the time on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls seven minutes and the gentleman from west virginia has six minutes. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i'll continue to reserve, and i'd like to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, who has introduced the other body's bill in this house. it's labeled h.r. 14, which is twice as good as h.r. 7. i yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i thank mr. rahall for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r.

4239, the republican 60-day highway bill extension. as prime construction season begins, thousands of construction workers and their families will continue to struggle because our republican colleagues would rather engage in hyperpartisan politics than put americans back to work. today's highway extension is yet another example of the failed leadership and absent policies of the republican party. unlike the successful bipartisan efforts of safetea-lu, t-21 and istea that made our transportation system envy of the world, this impeds our ability to rejuvenate our economy. let me be clear, this extension does nothing to create jobs or provide severt to states. it does nothing to rebuild our crufrling infrastructure and it does nothing to -- crumbling infrastructure. in six weeks, the republican highway re-authorization that

was drafted in the dark of night and was passed out of the transportation and infrastructure committee without a single person other than chairman mica having read the bill. when our republican colleagues finally did read the bill, they, too, were struck by the overwhelmingly negative consequences for many of their states. the bill has been in limbo ever since. if the priority of the republican caucus was to create jobs, they would immediately take up and pass h.r. 14, the bipartisan senate highway bill, that will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to another million jobs, supporting over 113,000 jobs in my state of new york alone. if the priority of the republican caucus was to reduce the deficit, they would take up and pass h.r. 14, the only proposal in town that is fully paid for. if the priority of the republican caucus was to provide certainty to the markets and the states, then we would take up h.r. 14, the two-year senate bill, and not the 60-day extension the house republicans now propose. h.r. 14 not only passed by an overwhelming bipartisan

majority in the senate, 74-22, the bill enjoys 114 co-sponsors in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rahall: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. bishop: as house republicans continue to isolate themselves from the mainstream, america continues to wait for much-needed infrastructure jobs and the thousands of businesses they support. i urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted extension of the highway transportation bill and pass the bipartisan senate bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida continues to reserve the balance of his time. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm honored to the yield the customary one minute -- ok. i'll yield two minutes -- no, i'll yield the customary one minute to our distinguished democratic leader, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. i couldn't resist the opportunity to come to the floor to speak on the situation that we have before us. i thank the gentleman from west virginia for his ongoing leadership in terms of bipartisanship and constructive legislation to rebuild america, which is so important to us. as has been the tradition, mr. mica will admit that this has always been a bipartisan effort. that is the history, that is the tradition that has served the country well. for the first time, however, the republicans have chosen to do a restrictly republican bill, which our very respected secretary of transportation, who served in this house as a republican, served as a member of congress as well as served with minority leader, mr. michael, as a staff person, so there is a long history of knowledge of legislation in the

congress, that this was the worst transportation bill he had seen in his 35 years of public service and, again, this is the field on which he is an expert. says the bill loses jobs, the bill the republicans want to put forth, h.r. 7, and it also diminishes safety. that is not a formula for a good transportation bill. less safety, fewer jobs, losing jobs. and so we have an opportunity to support a bipartisan bill that has come from the senate, 3/4 of the senate in a bipartisan way passed it out. march 31 is the deadline in which all of this will expire unless congress acts, and congress is not acting because the republican majority does not have its act together. their no way or the highway attitude means no highway bill

that does create jobs and promotes public safety. it's really so sad because in the tradition of our country, from the start, from the very start, thomas jefferson understood the need for building infrastructure of america. he tasked his secretary of the treasury to come up with a project that would expand into america. the louisiana purchase and the louis and clark expedition. it came the cumberland road, the erie canal over time. over time the transcontinental railroad and the rest would come later. and then in our century, a republican president, president eisenhower, at a time of bad economic times, bad economic times he went forward, took the initiative of interstate highway initiative which was so important to our country. it was a security issue to

unite america. it was a jobs initiative to build that interstate highway system, and it was about promoting commerce, connecting people, improving the quality of life. it was a great initiative, and it, too, was a bipartisan initiative. in fact, in the senate our friend, senator gore, vice president gore, his father took the lead on that legislation, distinguished gentleman from tennessee, as we heard earlier from the gentleman from tennessee. so this has all been a bipartisan initiative. the about rebuilding america which is part of our reigniting the american dream, to build ladders of opportunity for people who work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility can have a ladder of success to climb and then put down for others to do. and part of that is, a, make it in america so that people can make it in america. b, and i get to this point,

build america. build america. build the infrastructure of america. that means everything from the highway to mass transit, rapid transit, high speed rail, all kinds of technological infrastructure that we need, broadband and the rest. we should be -- it doesn't have any political or partisan cast to it at all. it never has. until now. and until now for reasons that is very hard to explain to the american people, we have a solution. the bill expires -- the authorization expires march 31. a bill that can be sent to the president in a matter of hours from this house of representatives this day instead of smoothing the way, the road to jobs, we have the

republicans putting up yet again another obstacle because they have not been able to get unity in their caucus on a bill that promotes commerce, builds america, promotes safety and creates jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. so what are we doing wasting the public's time with the 60-day extension? i support the leadership of our ranking member, mr. rahall, when he talks about why we have to do something better, something more important, something worthy of the concerns of the american people than a parliamentary maneuver that isn't going to produce anything. it doesn't even have anything attached to it that says let's do this now so that we can do something better later. it has a bill that they cannot even pass on the house floor, their own h.r. 7.

if they could pass that they would. their own caucus doesn't support what they are putting forth, so they expect the rest of us to cover for them. well, that does a real disservice to the american people. it's a real disservice to the hundreds of thousands of construction workers who are out of work. this -- the jobs it would save and the jobs it would create, over two million jobs and yet -- and yet instead of doing that we have a tactical maneuver for god knows what reason. everything we do is about time. about time. shortening the time in which people have to wait for jobs. shortening the time that people have to go to their jobs. and pe -- and we put people back to work by -- with the biggest jobs will congress could pass, that's a

transportation bill. it's at our disposal. mr. bishop introduced it as h.r. 14, we brought it up earlier today, the republicans resoundingly voted against the senate bill. i understand it was a procedural vote. now on a substance -- substantive vote, why don't you bring that bill to the floor? why don't you bring that bill to the floor? and i ask the question again to my republican colleagues, why don't you bring the bill to the floor? three quarters of the united states senate in a bipartisan way passed it out. we all want a longer bill. this is the bill they can pass, this is the bill we should pass so the president can sign it into law. anything else is just a conversation. taking action, taking a vote, that's what the american people expect us to do we can talk all we want, what the american people want us to do is act. so i reject 60 days.

we can do something much better for the american people. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the gentleman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i keeled two minutes to mr. shuster from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: i appreciate the opportunity to ask my democratic colleagues, following up on the distinguished leader's question, with a twist to it, why didn't you, when you controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, why didn't you introduce a highway bill? you could have done anything you wanted to? the former distinguished speaker said that this is going to be the biggest jobs bill we pass. i thought your stimulus was supposed to be the biggest jobs bill we ever passed? it's amazing to me to come down here on the floor, and i have so much respect for my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but to hear this argument going around and around, as i said earlier, there's amnesia on the other side of the aisle. you had control of congress. the bill expired in 2009 you still had control of both houses and the presidency. you didn't pass a bill. i'd also like to make note if you look back in the history of the highway bill, we've never been in the financial situation we are today. we've never faced the kind of debt that we face today. an what this bill does is it lives within our means. but it does more than just that, living within our means, which we should do. thomas jefferson would be appalled if he saw the kind of debt we racked up today. he would be appalled by that. so we're living within our means an streamlining the process. we are saying we can do more with less if we change the process. the senate bill doesn't have the kibe of reforms. what the senate bill does is bankrupts the highway trust fund. then we have a bigger problem

two years down the road or actually 18 months, maybe 17 months, probably 16 months by the time we get it passed. the senate bill requires states to incorporate livability an smart growth as if the states aren't smart enough to do it themselves, as if they can't figure out how they want to improve the livability of their cities? no, the federal government has to do it. the federal government has to insist they do that. it also -- look, i think that members of congress ought to have the ability to direct where some of these funds go but the senate bill, what it allows are the bureaucrats, it allows the bureaucrats -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. mr. mica: i yield 30 seconds. mr. shuster: the bureaucrats in washington will decide how the money is spent. the senate fails to streamline the project delivery process, which we do. it will allow taos bill roads faster. time is money. anybody that's been -- anybody knows that time is money. that is extremely important.

it -- i won't yield. you have time left, i believe. the gentleman -- the senate bill discouraging private sector investment. like i said this bill is a good bill, it's a solid bill, it's one the people out there want to see a five-year bill, not a 16-month extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. members on both sides of the aisle are cautioned against referring to one another in the sec person. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: time check, please. the speaker pro tempore: two and a half minutes for the gentleman from west virginia and three and a half -- four and a half from the -- for the gentleman from florida. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. oolver.

mr. olver: a well-maintained highway net woork is necessary for our country to grow an its influence on our country is staggering. our auto manufacturing industry an its enormous repair and parts supplier base, the gas stations and complex distribution is system all thrive pause we have an efficient highway system people need to use. the physical construction of roads an railroads requiresing a fwat materials processed locally, steel and rebar made by american companies an crews manned by american workers. our transit system supports the manufacturing of buses, street cars, and trains while providing businesses with cost effective access to the labor pool. furthermore, every good product produced or consumed in the u.s. must be transported via our network of roads, rails an ports. as a result the efficiency with

which our system operates determines whether american goods can compete in the global marketplace. unfortunately, the 60-day extension republicans offer on the floor today keeps our transportation system bogged down in a state of uncertainty. it slows down ongoing projects by only providing partial funding, it jeopardizes a major part of this construction season by hindering and delaying their ability to determine how many projects can be funned. it shuts down the planning and design pipeline for future projects because they don't know what resources will be available. consequently, this being the ninth extension since 2009, state transportation programs are being forced to move forward only with projects that meet the lowest common denominator. mr. speaker, if the republican goal is to slow economic growth and keep unemployment high into the fall this 60-day extension will accomplish that spectacularly.

in fact, i can think of nothing -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rahall: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: i can think of nothing that would be more effective at slowing economic growth and keeping unemployment high. mr. speaker, there is a better option. bring to the floor an let us vote on the senate's multi-year, bipartisan bill passed by a vote of 74-22 with majority support from both parties. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i have no further speakers and i would request the ability to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for. mr. rahall: i yield myself the balance of my time. to respond to the other side of the aisle about which party was in control when nothing was

done or vice versa, whatever, as that side of the aisle knows, it takes so much to get the other body to agree on anything these days, to get the of votes necessary. doesn't matter which party controls the other body to get them to agree on something is difficult. i conclude by saying vote against these tactics and pass the senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. mr. mica: may i inquishe as to the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls four and a half minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: unfortunately, this has turned into, i guess, sort of a political gotcha game. if this was a sporting event, right now the umpire would probably come out, throw down a flag and say a foul has been committed. it's kind of sad that the other side, that bipartisanship has become a one-way street.

no one has worked harder than i have to try to accommodate the other side of the aisle. let me just -- mr. speaker, one of the former speakers said refused to work with the democrats. that's not true. we took 60% of their recommendations and one reason we took longer than i had hoped buzz to -- was to make certain that everybody had a fair, open opportunity. the process was completely open and again, going to the ranking member's district for the first hearing, all the way to the west coast, in the amendment process, i told members that everyone would be heard and everyone would have an opportunity to offer an amendment yesm, we sat for 18 hours. we took over 100 amendments from the other side of the aisle an each of them was considered with respect and dignity that every member of this body should have before everybody.

so this is not true and again, i just don't think it's fair. the gentleman from new york, mr. speaker, mr. bishop, came to the floor and said that i was the only one that had a copy of the bill. in fact, the irony of it is, mr. bishop, mr. speaker, and his staff, everyone, in fact, all the members, were given a copy a week before, twice the period of time than in the past, copies of the bill were distributed from his office, which he also admitted to in committee long before the bill came to the committee. you know, the secretary said this is the worst bill he has seen. it is for bureaucrats. it is for people in those tall buildings in washington, because we are consolidating programs. we've gone from six core programs to 130. we have offices that we don't

need. duplicate programs. someone is trying to actually do reform. yes, we do substantial reform. they throw money at problems. we at least keep it level and we responsibly pay for it. but even when they threw money things like stimulus that mr. shuster brought forward, 35% of the money, two and a half years, still sitting in the federal treasury because shovel ready became a national joke and it's a national joke because of the red tape, the bureaucracy, all by those people who may lose their jobs in those glass buildings right here in our nation's capitol. again, i don't think it's fair, i'm disappointed, we tried to do a 90-day, the house is going to be out an the senate is going to be out for two weeks for easter. then they come back, one body is out thorke body is out, so nobody's here.

they weren't happy with 90 day well, tried to accommodate the 60 days. this is a political game of gotcha, and it's unfortunate, because there are many americans counting on us for jobs, many people who lost their home, particularly in the construction industry, they don't want rhetoric. they want action from this congress and if we just had a cooperative effort on this an true bipartisanship, we could get so much done for the american people. i'm saddened in a way but i'll tell you, i've done everything i can to move this forward. for some of those people i talked to who don't have a job, who have lost their homes and life savings, we need to put a few of them to work and we can if people would stop the nonsense an move forward in a responsible fashion. i just yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4239 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the afirmtive -- mr. rahall: mr. speaker. i ask for the yeas an nays and hope the vote occurs now. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise an remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and into insert extraneous materials on h.r. 3309.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 595 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3309. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3309 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the communications act of 1934, to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the federal communications commission. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo,

will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i appreciate that and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, the communications and technology sector is one of the most competitive, innovative and open sectors of our economy. from fiberoptics to f 4 finance g wireless phone, from the tablet to the smart tv, they are creating high-quality jobs that comes with high-tech innovation and investment. now, despite a lackluster economy, wireless providers provided $66 billion in broadband infrastructure in 2010. the u.s. is now leading in the cutting edge wireless technologies. if we want this continue, though, we need to avoid needless bureaucratic red tape

and fix broken processes at the f.c.c. communications and technology companies and the public deserve a more transparent and responsive government agency, and that's exactly what the legislation before us now would accomplish, bringing transparency, bringing accountability to the federal communications commission. the bill is the fruit of the energy and commerce's own open and transparent process. last may we invited the commissioners of the f.c.c. to testify about their improving processes and we heard from them about the process problems that have occurred at the agency when it's been headed by chairs from both parties. this is not about this commission. may be about a prior commission, but it's about a systemic pro-. in june, staff released a discussion draft and we held a legislative hearing with the diverse panel of experts representing industry, think tanks, academia and the states. we listened to what they had to say about the various ideas that were on the table and we began to work to modify those

ideas into something that was workable. in response of the views presented at the hearings, as well as additional inputs from both sides of the aisle we refined the draft legislation. then, in november, the subcommittee on communications and technology held an open markup of the bill at the subcommittee level. text everybody had to see it, had a chance to work on it and amend it. earlier this month the committee marked up the bill, the full committee did, with several bipartisan amendments that continued to improve the f.c.c. processes. so in large part the f.c.c. process reform act asks the f.c.c. to go through a process similar to what we went through on the energy and commerce committee to draft this reform legislation and we asked the f.c.c. to implement the kinds of reforms we implemented in this very house to avoid the abuses that's taken place in the past. now, the f.c.c. issues final decisions without giving the public an opportunity to even

review the text that they're considering. i want you to think about that for a minute. they actually issue final decisions without giving the public an opportunity to review the text. we don't operate that way in the house. at least not any more. the transition team that speaker boehner asked me to chair after the last election adopted a requirement that people have time to read the bill, a three-deleover provision is in place -- a three-day layover provision is in place. the press corps in the gallery behind us gets a chance to read the bill. why not when it affects the most dynamic industries in our nation, why not ask them to have the text available? that's what we do in this legislation. last october, let me tell you what's part of the problem. last october the agency introduced more than 100 new documents in its universal service proceeding in the last few days of public comment giving the public as few as two days to comment on thousands of

pages on new data isn't right. these are some of the wraths of documents behind me in these binders. can you imagine two days you're supposed to evaluate everything there? as the present c.e.o. of the wireless association said there are other elements of h.r. 3309, such as the provision aimed at preventing data dumps, this is what we call a data dump, right before it goes on sunshine that would have significant improvements in the regulatory process, sensible regulatory policies that contribute to the wireless industry's ability to continue serving as a catalyst for innovation, economic growth and job creation. so we are trying to get the commission not to do data dumps, to try to be more transparent. it would require the f.c.c. to provide the public a minimum amount of time. the agency ought to let you have a chance to participate. now, unlike executive agencies, these are the ones under the direct command and control of the president of the united states, the f.c.c. never

assesses the cost and benefits of regulations. not required to so they don't do it always. they can but they don't. now, president obama issued an executive order that required executive agencies to actually assess cost and benefits of every single, every single regulation they issue. that's from the president of the united states. and his executive order requires a more stringent test for major rules. these are the ones affecting the economy in the area like $100 million. the f.c.c. is not one of those executive agencies. it does not have to follow what the president of the united states tells the other agencies to do because it's an independent agency. so everything the president's asking all the other agencies to do, in this legislation we're saying, f.c.c., you should do as well. now, president obama appointed a jobs council. how do we make america more competitive? how do we improve the processes that really drive economic growth? that jobs council called on this congress last year to

require independent agencies, like the federal communications commission, to actually conduct a cost benefit analysis before putting more red tape on industry. go find out what it's going to cost to do what you propose to do. now, i want it to be clear, we didn't require the f.c.c. to do the more onerous test that the president requires. it is less onerous than his executive order because it takes a lighter touch regulation applied to all regulations and applies the f.c.c.'s major rules so we ratchet it down. we are not trying to overburden this agency. if every other agency of the federal government can do a cost benefit analysis at a more sophisticated level, what's wrong having the federal communications commission to do a light touch review of cost and benefit? and you don't hear arguments that this is all brand new stuff. can't be done. we are going to litigate for 15 years. the whole world's going to end. look, this uses language right

out of president obama's order. the bill requires for major rules, quote, a reasoned determination that the benefits of the adopted rule or the amendment of the existing rule justify its costs, recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. that's in our language. it's also in the president's language. taking into account alternative forms of regulation and the need to tailor regulation to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives. virtually all of that language i just read to you is what the president of the united states has put as a requirement on the agencies over which he has direct control. we're saying the f.c.c. is under our control as an independent agency. we're sort of the mother ship for the f.c.c. as congress it's up to us to carry out these provisions. they are good public policy changes. the f.c.c. has a substantial backlog that affects small businesses and consumers.

4,984 petitions, 3,950 applications are more than two years old. two years old. all across the country people have been asking the f.c.c. to take actions, to stall things, to come to decisions. they do it in a clouded, behind-the-curtain sort of way and you sit on the outside as a public to try to grow jobs, invest and you wait. you wait. two years of lifetime for an entrepreneur in the communications marketplace, my wife and i were small business owners for 22 years. we were broadcasters. we've been out of it since december of 2007. i am trying to fix it here. 1,083 consumer complaints are more than two years old. the f.c.c. has done nothing on them. the bill requires the f.c.c., therefore, to set shot clock for decisions.

we don't tell them the length of those shot clocks. we say, look at your workload and give the public a gauge of when you will reach a decision. you decide the decision. you decide how long those shot clocks will be because you know better in terms of the management flow of your woke load what's appropriate but set time time -- yrk load what's appropriate but set some timelines. they have accomplished unrelated policy goals and implemented rulemaking from judicial rule. what does that mean? it does so through last-minute ideals with applicants that are often not disclosed until just before a few days or hours before the f.c.c. approves a bill -- a deal. one problem with these volunteerary commitments is they're not voluntary. if you're trying to get the f.c.c. to approve your transfer of license, the f.c.c. in recent years has used that

approval authority to go beyond any statutory authority they have and hold you hostage. outside the port holes we would call it -- portholes we would call it extortion, probably. we really don't have authority to decide on transferring your license. that's true. we're looking at that. but we want you to go off here and agree to do all these other things of which we have no authority to mandate you do them. we can't do a rulemaking if we want to because we don't have the authority under the statute to do it but by the way, wink, nod, twist your arm if you don't and you don't call it volume untear then you can probably -- voluntary then you can probably kiss this merger goodbye. nobody in this chamber should support that kind of activity. yet, if you support this -- i know there are some companies out there who aren't real wild about this because they see this as an ability to affect their competitors.

affect their competitors. they say, oh, that's great. we'll twist them at the f.c.c. and force them to do things they wouldn't do on their own, outside their regulatory and legal authorities. we'll put a finger on the scale and that's what happens. that should stop. some argue we should not treat the f.c.c. differently than other agencies. well, in effect that's what's happening today. every other agency's been directed by the president of the united states to do these things we're directing it to do through this legislation, but because it is different, it is an independent agency, none of what the president is suggesting to be applied to the independent agency. they say, we'll do it on their own. they may. the chairman of the f.c.c., julius janikowski, has done some excellent reforms. as soon as a new one comes in it may be wiped out. we have good processes and

procedures going forward regardless who controls what around the f.c.c. in the future. the f.c.c. does act differently. now, the federal energy regulatory commission, known as ferc, is a similar independent agency, but it doesn't operate this way. it actually puts the text of its proposed rules out for the public to see before they vote on it. it actually builds its case before they make a decision. we have an issue going on right now where i asked the f.c.c. to give me the document they voted on as part of this universal service run rewrite versus what came out the back end when they were finished weeks later. 751 pages of regulations. they won't give me the documents. you see, it changed behind the curtain. they circulated it around in private. they edited. it they released their press release saying this is what they're doing and then they change it. then you wait. the public doesn't have a chance to see what they're actually considering until it's too late and it's final.

i think it's wrong. both sides of the aisle for institutional reform at the f.c.c. a former white house advisor said they are in dire need of constitutional reform. state commissioners have been calling reform of the f.c.c. rulemaking process for years. in fact, the national association of regulatory utility commissioners, those are the people looking out for the ratepayers and consumersers, this is their job, endorsed language -- the actual language, the proposed rule be published for comment. a 60-day comment cycle. they have review before voting on it and on and on. this is good, solid government reform legislation. this does not protect the status quo. it does not say to the f.c.c., this is great, keep doing what you're doing. some of us came here to change that. with that, i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition today to this bill, 3309. it's a bill that essentially guts the federal communications commission by requiring new, onerous process requirements which will result in an agency that is less effective, less agile and less transparent. ms. eshoo: which is the opposite way of where we all want to go. if the ranking member of the communications and technology subcommittee, i support modernizing the f.c.c. and the democrats on the subcommittee do as well. we want to enable the agency to operate with increased openness, which transparency and accountability. but unfortunately -- this bill doesn't accomplish these goals. >> mr. speaker, i'm not sure

her microphone is working properly. not to take any time away, but it doesn't seem to be on where we're getting feedback. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: i've asked them to look into it. mr. walden: maybe she should try the other microphone. ms. eshoo: i think i hear my voice in it. can you hear me? mr. walden: i'm not sure it worked at the beginning, i think we should restore the time. the speaker pro tempore: we'll do that. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentleman and rise in opposition to 3309. this bill guts the federal communications commission by requiring new, onerous process

requirements which will result in an agency that's less effective, less agile, and less transparent. the opposite direction, i think, of where we all want to go. as ranking member of the subcommittee on communications and technology, i want to thank the chairman for the work that he has done with us. he's always been very respectful and the process, i think, has been a good one. democrats support modernizing the f.c.c. because we want to enable the agency to operate with increased openness and transparency. as i said. now over -- but unfortunately, the bill doesn't accomplish these goals. over the past year, our subcommittee has heard from countless industry representatives administrative law experts an public interest advocates but there aren't any public interest advocates that support this bill, which i think in and of itself is

instructive. aamongst those experts, and the chairman mentioned, the dean of the university of colorado law school, who is often cited and implied by adopting some of these proposed reforms is the way to go. but dean wiser tells us adopting this law would be a grave mistake. yet despite the feedback of a bipartisan group of administrative law experts who suggested this legislation could tie up the f.c.c. in 15 years of litigation, that's a real job creator for lawyers, the house is going to vote today on this, which requires unique statutory mandates that apply only to the f.c.c., altering the way in which the f.c.c. reviews transactions and exposing the agency to new litigation risks.

3309 mandates that the f.c.c. undertake a cost benefit analysis of any rule which, quote, economically significant impact. this requirement ignores the fact that the f.c.c. already takes into account the impact of its rules on small businesses. and to add insult to injury, the c.b.o. estimates that if enacted, 3309 would cost $26 million and require the agency to hire an additional 20 employees to handle the new rule making, reporting, and analysis activities required under the bill. the chairman has said, well, it's a fees-driven agency. fees from businesses, fees from anywhere. it's still going to cost $26 million more and add more to the bureaucracy that i think the majority really doesn't have much affection for. for nearly 80 years, the f.c.c. has operated as an independent

agency responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. by most accounts, the f.c.c. continues to innovate and implement reforms and the chairman was very gracious toout line what chairman janikowski has done under his leadership, including removing 120 obsolete regulations, drastically reducing the number of pending applications an taking steps to increase transparency and stake holder participation. for all of these reasons, mr. chairman, i don't believe that 3309 is the solution. that's high i'm urging my colleagues to oppose this legislation even though there are some parts of it that i support. we need to ensure that the f.c.c.'s ability remains to protect consumers and ensure a competitive marketplace in the years to come.

with that, i will reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, one of the original -- the original co-spon or of this legislation, mr. kinzinger. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you for the time to speak on thevert. having the opportunity to lead the effort in the committee and now on the house floor to get f.c.c. reform passed is something i'm passionate about because i feel this legislation will make great strides in improving the predictability, efficiency and transpersoncy tissue transparency and efficiency of the f.c.r. and its operations. a common theme i've witnessed in my time here in congress, a common theme is bureaucrats coming up with answers, but they do so without following a

standard set of procedures, laws or demrines. i think this can be seen in times when certain concessions are pushed out the will of the parties. government transparency is a major key to gaining the trust of the public and this legislation will put into place some really common sense reforms. key among those, telling the f.c.c. they must publish the specific text of proposed rules for all to see before adoption of those rules. they must also allow enough time for the public to comment on those proposed rules so their voices can also be hear. i've seen that chairman janikowski made some good progress in implementing much of what's in this legislation. but the fact of the matter is, many of those efforts are done at his discretion and are no long for the place when he leaves. statutory and regulatory authority should be what moves the decision making process of the f.c.c. and i believe the efforts of this bill will put

the f.c.c. in line with the intent of congress. i thank the chair and i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is -- the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: at this time, i'd like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman. the chair: for how much time? mr. waxman: for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman and my colleagues, today the house is taking up h r. 4309, which the republican says is a modest proposal to make the department operate more efficiency. i have to agree, this would not reform the f.c.c., it erases it. it makes it more difficult for the f.c.c. to protect consumers and strips the f.c.c. of its powers to make sure that

mergers between telecommunications companies are in the public interest. it would stymy the ability of the agency to do much of anything except produce reports for congress. of the i have -- though i have many problems with the bill, i have three major concerns i want to highlight. first, it creates a new set of procedures for the f.c.c. for more than 65 years, the administrationive procedure act has governed administrative agencies across the federal government. this bill creates a special procedural set of rules for the f.c.c. alone. let me give you an example. the bill requires the f.c.c. to include in every notice of proposed rule making the specific language of the proposed rule. although this should be a best practice, an the janikowski f.c.c. does it 86% of the time, it makes no sense to strip the agency of flexibility and

require it to do it every instance. just last week, the f.c.c. adopted unanimously a notice of proposed rule making on interoperateability requirements in the 700ing me hertz spectrum. it did this without including the specific language of proposed rules. as republican commissioner robert mcdowell stated, it made sense to refrain from including draft rules because, quote, putting forth proposed rules at this delicate stage may onlyties thorte private sector's creative process, end quote. he added that the open-ened nature of the notice allowed the commission to elist greater incite -- elicit depreart insight into implementation. administrative law experts have ridiculed the provisions in this bill. one said, why would anyone want

to tie the agency up in knots like this? subject to endless challenges? another told us industry lawyers would have a field day challenging and delaying f.c.c. actions. other experts told us it could take 15 years of litigation for the courts to clarify the meaning of the new requirements in the bill. even if the congressional budget office agrees that this bill would wrap the f.c.c. up in red tape, according to c.b.o., the agency would require 20 additional staff positions to handle the new rule making, reporting and analysis activities required under the bill. secondly, this legislation alters fundamentally the way in which the f.c.c. reviews transactions to ensure that they are in the public interest. under current law, the f.c.c.

is directed to protect the public interest when reviewing proposed mergers. this bill would curtail this authority significantly. the bill strips the f.c.c. of its authority to require merger conditions that promote broadband adoption, require minimum broadband speeds, require the repatriation of jobs from overseas or ensure broadband coverage in rural or low-income areas. provisions to protect smaller companies from harm could also fall by the wayside. this is not process reform but a fundamental assault on the f.c.c.'s authority to protect the public interest. finally, h.r. 3309 gives telephone, cable, or wireless companies vast new tools to tie the agency up in litigation for years. if they don't like what the agency is doing.

it does this by making all the regulatory analyses that a company -- that accompany a regulation subject to judicial review. if it's at&t or verizon or some other company that is subject to a regulation, they can sue the agency on the grounds that the cost-benefit analysis was deficient or theage soifs the market failure was inadequate or the agency failed to consider alternatives to regulation. these lawsuits with no other agency in -- which no other agency in government would face could effective pli paralyze the f.c.c. democrats want to work with republicans in the house to develop -- i ask for an additional 30 seconds. ms. eshoo: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. waxman: we want to work together in a bipartisan way to help our economy and the american public to make sure the f.c.c. is doing its job but we can't do this when the only

proposals brought to the house floor would turn the f.c.c. watchdog into a lap dog for industry. we should stop wasting time on ideological fights and start cooperating together. this will be another one-house passed bill that will not go anywhere in the other body, will not become law and for good reason, it shouldn't. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: before i yield to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, i just want to make a couple of corrections here to explain things. federal communications commission would still have the public interest standard that it has today to deny a transfer if it's not in the public interest. we don't take that away. we don't take that away. on interoperability that the ranking member talked about this interoperability standard that the commission is now taking up, ironically that was first raised as part of a

request by some to include in the merger, the at&t-qualcomm merger. it is doing a notice of inquiry. before we do draft rules, let's go out and survey the marketplace and find out what the issues are. then, the next logical step is to come back with a notice of a proposed rulemaking, i.e., the draft rules. this is what we are suggesting occur as regular practice as a result of this legislation. and now i into wield to the gentleman from nebraska, the distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee, mr. terry, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: thank you mr. chairman, mr. speaker. may i just submit that my friend that spoke on the other side may be the victim of some poor staff work that took some liberties to revise and extend the real bill we are debating here today because frankly the reforms here are fairly practical. and necessary. the -- what this really does is

puts in to the process of developing rules some simple changes that we think are reasonably necessary, keeping in mind that transparency is the key. so, for example, let's take the recent u.s.f. reform rule that came out. i've been active in u.s.f., mr. speaker, for several years. trying to get some of these reforms done through congress. it was taken up through the f.c.c. process. i was anxious to see the proposed rule and was very disappointed when it was basically a rough outline of what turned out to be then passed, then several days later or weeks later the full order came out. 750 pages. now, don't you think that if

you're going to vote on a proposed rule that you would know what the rule says before you vote on it? it seems rather simple, and i would expect that people that are watching this debate would think a bureaucracy i shall issuing a proposed -- bureaucracy issuing a proposed rule would be a transcript of the rule. we're just asking for simple things like that. there is a time for comment. and at the end of the comment period this last time -- and this is why shot clock is really necessary -- the f.c.c. then dumped volumes of documents that it said it was going to use as evidence in this process giving people 48 hours. now, the only ones -- can i have 15 seconds. 15 seconds.

mr. walden: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman has 15 seconds. mr. terry: the only ones least disadvantaged are the biggest entities that has a house full of lawyers that can go over it. little nebraska doesn't have the opportunity to do that and reply. so giving them sufficient time to review that just makes common sense, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. earlier the chairman of the subcommittee said that the bill does not change the public interest standard for reviewing mergers. that simply is not the case. the bill does change it. it alters the ability of the f.c.c. to impose conditions for the public interest which is a very serious issue. i'd now like to call on the chairman amayor tuss of the energy and commerce committee, the dean of the house of representatives, mr. dingell, for three minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. dingell: i thank the distinguished gentlewoman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: mr. chairman, i begin by praising my good friend from the full committee. it's that he brought us a bad piece of legislation. it should be rejected instantly by the house of representatives because it does nothing to help anything. i refer to the federal communications process reform act, which it is not. time and time again democrats accused our republican colleagues of passing bills in search of problems. i would like to say that this is the same. but worse than that, i can say we have before us a bill that is a prime example of trying to cure the disease and to kill the patient at the same time. important fact, h.r. 3309 would take the f.c.c. entirely out of the administrative procedures

act and make it subject to a unique set of procedural requirements totally understood by no one. and if there has to be a bunch of lawyers hired, they will be hired, as the gentleman from nebraska has pointed out, because they're sure going to need them to understand what has been done. everybody in this chamber should have real fears about turning over 60 years of solid administrative jps and staying -- and how that will bring about disastrous results. not only to the commission but to all of the entities regulated by that body because nobody is going to understand what this has done. mr. speaker, turtles fox wrote something called the indian resolution in 1783. it goes as follows -- resolved, that we have seen your work and it will not do. h.r. 3309 evokes the same sorry

sentiment. my friends on the other side of the aisle remind me that no democrat has been a bigger critic of the f.c.c. than i have. their right. but that doesn't necessarily mean i can agree what they propose to do in h.r. 3309. instead of passing a bad bill which they don't understand, which no adequate hearings have been held and on which the industry is scared to death, we should get down to the business of having a decent proceeding in which we would go into this matter thoroughly as a matter of oversight, to compel the commission to come forward to address the question of their transparency, of their regulatory consistency. this commission has skinned many cats in my days. we shouldn't come on the floor waving a silly bill like this

around which is going to do nothing to benefit the society and which the committee doesn't understand and cannot explain. now, if i have any time left i'll yield to my friend. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walden: if the gentleman will yield? the only comment i would make is we had hearings on this. mr. dingell: it relates to matters you brought before this house. you can't explain this bill and nobody can. mr. walden: we can easily explain the bill. we know what's in it. we've done public hearings. we've listened to people. we've accommodated some of the great suggestions we have. we have great bipartisan pieces in this bill, and the commission still has the authorized to deny transfers of broadcast licenses. it just can't go outside of its statutory authority to promulgate rules and kind of grab other issues and force people to do things they couldn't do under their statutory authority. i now yield to the gentleman

from georgia, mr. gingrey, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3309, the f.c.c. process reform act. i'd like to commend technology subcommittee chairman greg walden for his legislation and his diligent work on moving it through regular order. it is necessary to make statutory reforms at the f.c.c., i'd like to speak to one particular aspect of this legislation that i think is critically important to improving the way in which the f.c.c. operates. h.r. 3309 will require the f.c.c. to establish shot clocks to set timelines to compel the commission to act. under current law where shot clocks are not compulls --

compulsory, have placed unnecessary burdens on job creators. cebeyond provides i.t. and communications services to small businesses across the country. they employ, mr. speaker, approximately 1,600 people. and like many people in the industry, they are forced to wait on the whims of the f.c.c. unfortunately, many case proceedings linger for years with no resolution. and this stiffles growth for companies within the telecommunications industry. just over two years ago, i, along with our former colleague and now governor of georgia, 108th congress anal deal, sent a letter -- nathan deal, sent a letter to the f.c.c. that would bolster one of our greatest aspects of economic recovery, small businesses. in that letter, which i'd like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record, mr. chairman, we referenced a petition filed in november,

2009, that is now part of an f.c.c. proceeding commonly referred to the business braubd docket which is a proceeding focused on broadband infrastructure used to serve small businesses. mr. chairman, both the petition and the business broadband docket remains pending at the f.c.c. not only with no resolution but also no movement toward any conclusion. this behavior by the f.c.c. is unacceptable and it has occurred under both democrats and republicans. this ant i can dote highlights -- this antedoct highlights the need for a shot clock. it needs to be honored. this alone will make the f.c.c. work in a more efficient manner by creating more regulatory certainty in the telecommunications industry. i urge all of my colleagues to support establishing a shot

clock at the f.c.c. support h.r. 3309. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's request to enter items in the record will be covered under general leave. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i'd like to inquire how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 17 /4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from oregon has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: thank you. at this time i'd like to recognize four minutes to a distinguished member of the subcommittee, mr. doyle from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. doyle: i want to thank ms. eshoo, the ranking member of the technology subcommittee for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 3309, the f.c.c. process reform act. this legislation would place severe procedural burdens on the f.c.c. at a time when

telecommunications is such a major part of the lives of my constituents and the american public. h.r. 3309 would create harmful restrictions to the f.c.c.'s ability to enact consumer protection, and it can also limit the agency's ability to respond to communications related emergencies and cybersecurity threats. one of the restrictions imposed by h.r. 3309 is a requirement that the f.c.c. issue a notice of inquiry before the agency begins work on an actual rulemaking unless the f.c.c. can demonstrate that a notice of inquiry is not necessary. a notice of inquiry, mr. speaker, is basically an information gathering exercise that lets the public know about the f.c.c.'s intentions to examine an issue and collects initial comments from stakeholders. while in many cases, a notice of inquiry is important to the

f.c.c.'s rulemaking process, to have a notice of inquiry in every f.c.c. proceeding would be a burden to the proceedings. i'm concerned that this has not been fully considered. if i could i'd like to share just one example of the harmful potential consequences this legislation would have even for bipartisan goals. last year congress enacted a bill that i authored to create more community-run radio stations around the country. this bill was broadly supported by both sides of the aisle because so many of our constituents will benefit from more news reporting on local issues and emergency responses. the f.c.c. is currently implementing that law and expects to open a window for radio station licensing some time next year. but provisions in h.r. 3309 such as the requirement for a notice of inquiry could slow down the implementation of this law and many other rule makings by

several years, by adding procedural hurdles for the agency to jump through before it can implement rules. in the case of my legislation, the f.c.c. would have to delay its licensing window because of an unnecessary notice of inquiry, forcing communities to wait longer to get their new radio stations. i think most people would find this kind of delay very frustrating. and this is just one example, mr. speaker. in the case of more contentious policy issues, this bill would create years, maybe decades, of deadlock at the f.c.c. mr. speaker, we don't have to look very far this week to witness that our nation's laws and regulations are already being extensively litigated in the courts. this legislation would open up the f.c.c.'s process to even further litigation and it would severely limit the f.c.c.'s ability to protect consumers and create new rules. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. >> mr. chairman, before i yield to my colleague from new hampshire, i just want to point out that we're not quite understanding the bill here on the other side. mr. walden: because we do allow the f.c.c. to maintain flexibility where necessary, the bill only requires the notice of inquiry on new rule makings, requirements do not apply to deregulatory rule makings and the f.c.c. may waive the notice of inquiry in emergencies or where conducting both a notice of inquiry and a notice of proposed rule making would be infeasible. we tried to put balance in here. what's wrong with having the f.c.c., even in that case raised by mr. doyle, take 60 days? they can decide how long this is and go out and survey the market and say, what are the issues and then come back and then they write their rules. it's like us having a hearing. this isn't a burdensome requirement. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for one minute. mr. bass: i thank the gentleman from oregon for yielding to me.

i'm pleased that the house is considering it. it's a important -- it's important reform procedures at the f.c.c. this will improve the transparency, the fairness and consistency of this regulatory agency with oversight over telecommunications and technology. and would provide certainty to these markets that are so critical to our nation's economic recovery and growth. indeed over the past eight years landline, wireless and cable providers have invested more than half a trillion dollars in broadband infrastructure. this investment has created countless jobs for our nation and has positively affected our committee many times over. h.r. 3309 contains the commonsense nonpartisan trust of ensuring transparency and accountable of unelected bureaucrats by applying regulatory reform principles endorsed by the president's own january, 2011, executive order. establishing clear time frames for f.c.c. act, -- action,

requiring the f.c.c. to perform a cost-benefit analysis will provide our nation's small businesses and innovators with the regulatory certain necessary to invent and create new jobs. i urge passage of this important legislation. thank you -- i urge passage of this important legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to recognize the man that i call mr. telecommunications, the real expert in the house of representatives, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady so much. i think all of us on the democratic side would agree that if there was a way to streamline and strengthen the f.c.c.'s procedures, if we could find a way to improve the way in which it carries out its duties, well, we would support that. however, the aim of the republican legislation is not to streamline the federal

communications commission, it's to straitjacket the federal communications commission. this is a bill which would severely restrict the commission's ability to operate effectively. if this bill becomes law, the f.c.c. would stand for fully constrained commission and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal of the republicans in this legislation. it would establish a separate administrative process to govern the f.c.c.'s internal operations that would be different and more cumbersome than any other agency in the entire federal government , without producing any policy benefits. now, we know who supports the bill. at&t, the big companies. they support this legislation. we also know who opposes this

legislation. every consumer group, every public interest group in the country says, this is a particularly bad bill. from a public interest perspective. but if you're at&t, if you're a big company, you love this. this is going to tie the commission in nots. you can continue to do whatever you feel like doing indefinitely because the republicans have decided to create the most cumbersome, the most cumbersome regulatory process of any agency in the country. they're creating a, they're pioneers here, the republicans out on the floor, they want to create the most modern red tape, tie them in nots agency possible with the hopes had -- knots agency possible in the hopes that other agencies will end up emulating them and it's going to be the first jobs bill that the

republicans have passed so far in this congress. because this bill's going to create so many jobs for lobbyists, so many jobs for lawyers, so many jobs for all the people who are now going to be put to work trying to untangle, untie this mess of a bill, of a regulatory agency that is going to be created by this process. so, ladies and gentlemen, this bill takes the public interest standard, the public benefits that has always been the test of whether or not the agency can in fact make a decision that ensures that the interests of all americans are being protected, and turns it into something which is going to wind up with a harmful drastic departure from current law. this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i've never heard a finer defense

of a broken bureaucratic process than i just heard. let me point out that the national association of regulatory utility commissioners, now, these are the folks that stand up for consumers and rate payers, again, support many of the proposals in this bill. specifically they point out that the minimum 60-day comment cycle is good, that the mandating that all commissioners have adequate time to review a draft decision before voting on it is good, and to require the actual language of a proposed rule to be published for comment is a good idea. and again the president's own executive orders ask for these things in many cases to be done to the other agencies but he can't do it to this one. it's our job to do it here, to fix and reform and drive for accountability and transparency against those who defend the bureaucracy as broken as it is. i yield to the gentlewoman from tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, i find it so interesting as we are here

debating this bill, this is only a 21-page bill. and i don't find, mr. speaker, in this bill i don't find the word constrain and straitjacket anywhere. it does not exist in this bill and as i heard my colleagues talk about this bill, i think that they have not read the bill. so, unlike the 2,300-page bill that is being debated at the supreme court across the street, i would encourage them to pick up this little 21-page bill and give it a read. i've also found it very interesting, the white house and this administration likes to say transparency is the cornerstone of their administration, but i have seen them go to just extreme lengths it seems, the white house and the senate, to block bringing this process reform bill forward. yesterday the white house released a statement of administration policy saying,

and i'm quoting, it is generally recognized that the f.c.c. has improved its practices and procedures to make it more effective. but the truth is, in the last 50 years what we have seen is that their rules and regulations, their impact, their footprint has grown 800%. not doubled, not a little bit a year. 800%. that is why we need this bill and i commend the chairman for bringing the bill forward. let me tell you a few things that this bill does. i think that they're common sense. it would do a few things like allowing more time for public comment. well, my constituents want more time to weigh in on these issues . more time is a very good thing. measuring the agency's performance with scorecards. our children have report cards. knowing where you are and what you're doing and what kind of

goal you're trying to reach, that is very healthy. that is a good thing. making sure that agency -- the agency doesn't attach extraneous regulation conditions on business transactions. we're talking about jobs and the effective regulation on jobs. it is such a positive thing to pull back regulation and free up free enterprise. that is what we should be about. is making certain that we can move forward on these issues. requiring the agency to do cost-benefit analysis for rules that cost more than $100 million. well, how about that? cost-benefit analysis. is a rule going to be worth the cost? is it going to be worth the effort? or is it going to be too expensive to afford? my goodness, we've had all sorts of things that they're too big to fail and too expensive to afford, so let's certainly make

sure that we are evaluating these rules before they get put onto the books, before they have the force of law. let's make certain that we pass this reform bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: thank you. this is a bad bill. h.r. 3309 would create a special set of very vegas and unique procedural -- vague and unique procedural hurdles for the f.c.c. that apply to no other agency. it will result in decades of litigation.

we have to have simplicity, we have to have clarity. this legislation will open up the flood gates of confusion. it significantly reduces the f.c.c.'s ability to take the public interest into account and that's the -- that is the fundamental interest that should be on the minds of this congress . it provides endless routes for potentially misguided litigation, making every single one of the f.c.c.'s regulatory analyses in support of a new rule and not just the rule itself subject to judicial review. there's going to be regulation or not regulation. this legislation means there's endless litigation. these requirements would also amend the communications act to mandate how the agency should operate internally, with detailed requirements for the most basic regulatory actions such as specific timelines associated with notice and comment, rule making procedures.

this is congress micromanaging. mr. speaker, i urge the congress to defeat this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: could i inquire as to the time on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 3 3/4 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from california has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, distinguished former chairman of the committee, my friend, mr. barton. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: had a brain freeze there. texas congressmen don't often quote shakespeare but i'm going to attempt it. there's a line in "ham let" that goes something -- "hamlet" that

goes something to the effect that, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. my friends on the democratic side of the aisle seem to be protesting too much a very modest bill, 20-something pages in length. it's basically a good government bill. the bill basically says that the f.c.c., before they issue a rule, they've got to actually put it out for public comment, for at least 30 days. and then once they formalize it, they've got to let people have another 30 days to comment on what they actually are proposing. subcommittee chairman walden circulated a draft bill, to my knowledge he circulated it to the entire committee and to the industry and the stakeholders and i know in my case i had a few modest suggestions that were incorporated in the bill and then when he went to subcommittee i offered an amendment that was accepted. he did the same process at full

committee, it came to the rules committee, i'm told that there are half a dozen, 10, 10 amendments have been made in order, eight of those by my friends on the democratic side of the aisle. we'll have that debate and the vote on those later today or tomorrow. so here you have a very modest, good government transparency and reporting, bringing the f.c.c. into the 21st century, how to do business bill and you would think they were going back to the dark ages. . nothing can be further from the truth. so i'm in very strong support of the process which is important and also the policy and the legislation that has resulted from it, and i would hope that in a bipartisan basis at the appropriate time we vote in the affirmative on h.r. 3309. it's a good piece of legislation. it can pass the senate. it can be signed by the

president, and it should be. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to use some of our remaining time on this side to rerespond -- to respond to some of the points that has been made from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. first, the majority argues that h.r. 3309 is only a, quote, light touch in making sure that the f.c.c. follows the obama executive order on cost benefit analysis. they fail to mention that such cost benefit review is not judicially reviewable. that's a very important fact here. the executive order states that it's, quote, not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable, at law

or inequity by any party against the united states. so h.r. 3309 would therefore create another avenue for appeal and litigation by corporate interests that oppose the f.c.c.'s efforts to take actions in the public interest. and no other federal agency would be subjected to such challenges. so that's number one. and that speaks to i think the public interest and which i think is at the heart of what the f.c.c.'s responsibilities are. second, mr. gingrey mentioned the shot clocks. there are 77 types of proceedings the f.c.c. must consider, and each item can be, as we all know and anyone that's tuned in and listening to, can be very complex. no wonder c.b.o. estimated that 3309 would require the hiring of 20 additional employees.

thirdly, as the majority placed in the record those that support the bill and even mr. markey spoke of some of the large telecommunication companies, i think it's important to sit down and say who is against it. bruce from the american journal, placing new procedural requirements on top of existing ones would effectively halt the creation of any contentious new f.c.c. rule. in other words, achieve a result more or less like what texas governor rick perry had in mind for the commerce and education departments. susan crawford in "wired" magazine. although the bill's proponents say they aim to make things work more quickly at the f.c.c., the legislation will have the opposite effect. it will make it very difficult for the f.c.c. to deal with any

of the real-time telecom problems the country faces. what the republicans seem to want at bottom is to grant the giant companies that sell us basic communications capacity and essential utility for the 21st century, the ability to throw sand in the works at every opportunity. from philip wiser, the dean at the university of colorado law school, i am against passing this bill which would give rise to unfortunate and unintended consequences that would undermine the f.c.c.'s future effectiveness without providing any real benefits. from the consumers union, the bill would require the f.c.c. to adopt rules as long as they do not impose any additional purred on industry. the bill limits the -- additional burden on industry. the bill does not protect consumers when considering

mergers. this is no small item, mr. chairman. and then the public interest groups coalition letter of february 9 of this year, this bill would severely hinder the ability to carry out its congressional mandate. its congressional mandate to promote competition, innovation and the availability of communication services. and with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to inquire how much time we have left on our side. the chair: the gentlelady from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: and i'll reserve that time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: given the limited amount of time i'll reserve as well. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: we'll yield back, mr. chairman. i don't have any more speakers on the legislation. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized.

the gentleman from oregon has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. walden: i appreciate the debate we've had today. it's been helpful to have. again, i'd point out that the national association of regulatory utility commissioners praises what we're doing in this bill in the points of requiring actual language to be available for people to see. you know, all we're doing here is telling the f.c.c., operate like these other agencies that have been asked to operate by the president's jobs council and by the president's executive order. but do so in a public and transparent way so that those who have business before the commission know what the commission's going to vote on before it votes or rewrites it and then puts it out later. go out and survey the marketplace. do a notice of inquiry and get input like we do in hearings here, mr. chairman, and then propose rules and put those texts out there, those rules and let the public see.

the grey defenders of the bureaucracy, my friends, some of them on the other side of the aisle says, we can't change anything in washington. some of us came to change washington for the better. we did it when we changed the rules of the house at the beginning of the session to make our bills more open and transparent. they crammed ,000-page bills through here with no amendments allowed on the floor one of which is being argued today across the street at the supreme court. republicans were denied an opportunity to offer a single amendment on the health care takeover bill on the house floor. denied every single amendment. these bills coming to the floor, thousands of pages, we change how the house operates so it can't happen again. the minority has 10 amendments on the bill. we had open markups in the full committee and subcommittee. we are here as republicans to change washington for the better. this bill does that. i urge your support. the chair: all time for generally debate has expired.

-- for general debate has expired. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-422. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-422. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. crowley: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-42 2 offered by mr. crowley of new york. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 595, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: i rise in support to this amendment. this problem has come to light over the past few years. it's a problem that's a concern for parents, a problem that's concern for babies, it's a problem that's a concern for law enforcement and i believe that my amendment will help to address this problem. here's what we have learned. many families do not know that the baby monitors that they purchased to help them take care of their infants and their children can be easily accessed by potential intruders. it's possible for someone, anyone at all to purchase a normal baby monitor at the store and use that monitor to see and hear inside a family's

home. quite literally, making it possible to monitor other people's children and their lives. in fact, recent investigative news stories by nbc in new york and throughout the nation found that one can even drive down the street with a baby monitor receiver and monitor every child on that street whose family uses an analogue baby monitor. outsiders waiting hundreds of feet from a home or canvasing a neighborhood can quickly and see the image -- an image of a young child or an entire room. the same image seen by parents inside their home. the concerns don't end there. potential intruders could also identify whether the parents or children are home at all, helping to create conditions of burglary. a potential kidnapper or abuser

could easily identify the child within a home as well as the easiest point of entry to abduct or cause harm to that child. this is a situation that's deeply concerning to many parents who know of the problem but equally as alarming is the fact that people don't know about the problem to begin with. this amendment would direct the f.c.c. when ruling on baby monitors to require companies producing analogue baby monitors to include warning labels on packages so that parents can make fully informed decisions about the potential risk of their purchases. parents have no greater concern than the well-being of their children and their families. and they deserve full information about the products they are purchasing. it comes down to making sure that parents are aware of any potential dangers. a clear warning on the monitors

will help all parents with the information they need to make the best decision for their family. i have written to the f.c.c. about this issue as well as the federal trade commission and consumer product safety commission. there is indeed an interest in addressing this problem, and i hope passage of this amendment will send a clear message to the agencies with jurisdiction over these products that we need to find a way to move forward and get this matter addressed. i ask for support of this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i share the gentleman's concerns that he raise. a lot of people don't understand, especially in the area of unlicensed spectrum, you don't have a right to a protective communication. and certainly in the analogue world you can listen in. were c.b. radio, family

networks, you can hear other people talking. this is an issue of concern certainly because all of us want to protect our families, those of us who have children. mine is now much older than that at 22, but this is certainly an issue and i appreciate the gentleman raising it. i know he has legislation, but i say this is the wrong vehicle for that because this is an f.c.c. process reform bill, not a labeling bill. and the f.c.c. does not use the phrase baby monitor in any of its rules. so in effect, this labeling requirement may never take effect anyway. and if the labeling requirement does take effect, it may cause some consumer confusion because you'd treat all analogue monitors perhaps as unsafe and digital monitors as safe even if that's not true for a particular brand of baby monitors. so i oppose this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to do likewise and i'd yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from new york. kragh kragh i request a recorded -- mr. crowley: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment in 2 will not be offered. the chair: it is in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-422.

ms. waters: mr. chairman, i have

an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment -- ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-422. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 5. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: to offer the amendment that's at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 11-422 offered by ms. eshoo of california -- 112-422 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. i come to the floor this afternoon to offer an amendment to this bill that probably for

most people, if they were tuned in and listening to the discussion and the debate of the bill, may not have gotten too excited about it. because it deals with the innards of an agency. but there is, this amendment i think is probably one of the most important parts of the bill. and i'm very pleased that the rules committee found it in order. this amendment goes to the heart of our democracy and it's all about disclosure. we have the opportunity today to secure disclosure in political reporting for the voting public. there's something very sick about our system today. people across the country are deeply and profoundly upset about the undisclosed sums of money that are being poured over

and through our political system. and when that happens it goes right to the heart of democracy. why? because it's undisclosed. we do not know who is contributing, we don't know how much they're contributing, we don't even know if foreign countries are involved in this. and so this is really a very simple amendment. it's an amendment that adheres to the same principles that many of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, have supported before. and it works like this. if an organization buys political advertising time on broadcast television, on radio, on cable or on satellite they would be required to disclose their large donors, those who give $10,000 or more to air the ad. there is today in statute,

section 315 of the communications act, and it's been in place since 2002, that covers issues of national legislative issue of public importance. and it also covers legally qualified candidates or any election to federal a office. so there's something already -- federal office. so there's something already in place. the only thing that's being added to this is if you're going to buy time, $10,000 or more, that you are required to disclose and name who the donors are. who's contributing that money. i think that this is very important. we are a democracy. we're not a pitocracy and what i hear over and over and over and over again from my constituents

is the damage that citizens united, the case that the supreme court rendered the decision, i think a disastrous one, two years ago. we have the jurisdiction at the energy and commerce committee and this subcommittee. it is within our jurisdiction to take this up in this bill. now, there is something else. some people have said that this is burdensome. burdensome for broadcasters, burdensome for those that broadcast television. burdensome to radio. burdensome to cable. burdensome to satellite. they're not the ones that have to disclose. only those that buy the time. and the files exist today. there is one file, one file only. now, there are other files for

other responsibilities. but there's only one for political ads. is america and our democracy not worth requiring those that want to buy the political ads to disclose who they are above $10,000 and that's it? so the law is already in place, since 2002, the file is already there. there is no burden to the broadcasters, radio, tv, satellite, cable, as i said. but simply to report. now there are those that say that that would be burdensome. that that would be burdensome as well. my question is, how heavy of a burden is it? how heavy of a burden? how heavy of a lift is it to report and disclose to the american people? the american people have a right

to know and once they know disclosure is a disinfectant, they will make up their own minds and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i don't rise in opposition to disclosure. i think that's a good thing if it's done in the proper venue in the proper way and that's not on this particular bill. a similar amendment was brought before the full committee and rejected by the full committee, has since been rewritten and it's better than what came before the full committee and i commend my colleague from california for that. but the way this is written, i believe it has lots of unintended consequences that could be difficult. and doesn't accomplish what she's trying to accomplish in an effective way. for example, my colleagues in

the chamber, you all would have to disclose when you go to inquire about the purchase of time now in radio, tv or satellite or -- you're $10,000 donors. any pact that gave you $10,000 or less would have to be listed. my colleague from california, that would be like abbott labs and google that gave you $10,000 and i've got some that gave me $10,000 and you'd have to do that and disclose up. wouldn't have to do, you know, money you got from others. but here's the deal. just to use -- because i looked this up last night, about 1:00 in the morning, i couldn't sleep. i was on west coast time. i went to the site where this stuff is disclosed, for us, as federal election commission site, so i could easily find all the documentation for my dear friend, i just happened to go to her contribution history for last year, and only $30,000 of the $296,817 that she got from pacs would be disclosed result of -- as a result of this which is 10%. but she was able to have another $400,000 or thereabouts from

individuals. so you're really down to only seeing a tiny little window of about 5% or less that would be disclosed in the public file of a broadcast satellite or cable operator or radio. which by the way is all on paper at least for now and not online. i was able to ferret out this information online. last night. 1:00 in the morning. or thereabouts. the other thing it does, i think it draws in every candidate in america the way this is listed. because when you read the actual language of the amendment, it talks about political programming and definings it as meaning program that communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance. so i'm thinking about a city that's having a fight with the federal government over some new federal regulation. that would be an issue of national importance. or if in a local community they were fighting about something again that, i don't know, a second amendment right, first amendment rights, that would be an issue of national importance.

and further the language talks about a legally qualified candidate for public office. so that would seem to be any candidate for public office at any level. so, then you have public broadcasting that could be pulled into this because they have people that underwrite programming that deals with issues of national importance. so, could that be that every public broadcaster would have to disclose somehow everybody that's paying for that programming? then you have the creative minds of the people who try to hide from disclosure. this would be real simple under this amendment. because it says, the lookback period is back to the last federal general election. whatever donors you've had at $10,000 would have to be reported before you could inquire about buying time. and purchasing time. well, it's not a reach to think that these clever little rascals out there would simply create a

new committee every time they wanted to buy time. that's easy to do. they got lots of money. they got lots of attorneys. they just create the, you know, the committee to attack anna eshoo, 2012. and it has no prior donors from the two years. so they escape this. they escape this. and who among us here thinks that they won't do that? so i don't think the amendment's written to accomplish the goal and that the goal is best achieved and accomplished through the federal election commission, not the federal communications commission. so we're about two letters off and i think it really raises a host of issues that are unintended consequences and should be defeated. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i'm asking for a recorded vote on that amendment.

the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-422. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. chairman, on behalf of mr. diaz-balart, i have an amendment i'm going to offer. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-422 offered by mr. walden of oregon. the chair: house resolution 595, the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. throughout the course of the debate today on the floor we'll have amendments offered by republicans and democrats, a total of potentially 10. this is one offered by my colleague from florida, mr.

diaz-balart, which we'll be supportive, there will be at least one amendment on the ear side we'll be supportive of as well. this would require the f.c.c. to make additional disclosures on its website and in its annual budget regarding its processing of freedom of information act requests. i think this does fall in the category of reforming how the f.c.c. operates in a positive way. it would increase the agency's transparency with regard to how it complies with freedom of information act requests. additional disclosure and transparency is a good thing and the burdens on the f.c.c. are clearly modest completely. and so i would urge passage of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. obviously my colleagues know that i'm a strong proponent of openness and transparency