audit and giving this information. so just to say because congress is inept, sure, they've been inept for 100 years on monetary policy. oh, we can't do it. let's let them go ahead and do this. no. forever and ever. yes, they do have shortcomings but i believe that you don't just renege on your responsibility because you can't get good results. . host: alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. i find you rather disingenuous. you are against the civil rights act in 1964. another thing i would like to say, what you're saying i found out you also have a lot of money invested in gold. basically what are you doing you are looking out for your own interest. the suns not bankrupt. it can print money any time it wants to. it's different from greece anti-eurozone.

the price of gold -- the dollar is based on oil. the type of a barrel of oil which is being manipulated by china because china has previously went in, had contract, where it has a fixed price on a barrel of oil. such so when the price rise it stays at that price. this is the difference. thank you. guest: what is his question? host: civil rights act. guest: he doesn't have the full story. the civil rights act is basically very good, but it also undermines a very important principle in a free society, that has to do with property rights. the real problem in the -- when we had the civil rights crisis was the fact the jim crow law saying they should have all been abolished because it's always government gives us our problem in our race relations. look at how the drug laws now are enforced.

they are very, very biased against minorities. i am against this drug war. if you really want to have fairness and civil liberties, you have to deal with the drug war. way out of proportion people who are arrested and put into prison are minority. way out of proportion on the use of drugs. when you look at problems the government is basically the problem. first it endorsed and legalized slavery. then it comes along with the jim crow laws that provided the integration. who was the biggest segregationist? it was our millingtary up until after world war ii. all i want to do is get rid of the government, get out of the way. when they create these jobs, racism, but you can't do this by invading somebody's private property and saying, we are going to tell you what you can do in your own houses, what you can do with your own liberty. you do not throw out all property rights in doing this. you throw out all the bad laws

and protection that has been given. this whole idea about gold and all, gold is something that is in the constitution. it's never been repealed. only gold and silver can be legal tender. to say i'm somehow unpatriotic or disingenuous because i think we should not allow the rich banks to get to print the money. he sort of likes the system. he thinks he's going to help poor people. but he's the one -- this attitude is the one that bails out the big banks. these are the ones that get $15 trillion and the middle class lost their jobs and houses. if you care about the middle class and poor people, you have to understand the monetary polcy. you don't want a system that bailed ute the world -- bailed out the world, bailed out the bangs and military complex. that's who gets the money. more investigation would reveal a great deal of enlightenment

for people who have those attitudes. host: our caller also brought up social security and whether or not you support it and yet draw upon it. guest: no. i wouldn't have voted for social security. i offer young people a chance to get out. i think people should -- young people want to get out because they know it's a bad deal. people who paid into it, it's their money. it was put in. it was supposed to be returned to them at a certain age. it wasn't an income tax. if you want to take some of your own money back i don't see any problem with that. the system, though, is not a workable system. it will come to an end. that's why i'd like to see young people be able to opt out of it. and that is my argument. and i think that it's nothing more than getting your own money back that was promised to people who were paying into that social

security system for a long time. host: the caller brought up the civil rights act and you responded. here's a story from the huffington post earlier this year. the civil rights act of 1964 destroyed privacy. and your criticism of that. guest: that's what i was talking about. host: is this a symbolic issue that gets you into hot water because of the -- guest: principle and consistency that gets me into the very good position i'm in where people respect me and they know i will argue consistently for the cause of liberty and for the constitution. though every time people turn around and say -- during the campaign will say ron, we love what you're doing. this would be conservative republican. we love what you're doing, are you a good fiscal conservative, you could really get somewhere if you would just drop this idea you shouldn't go to war unless you have a declaration. we want you to be more militant. they say if you just had can change in foreign policy. well, the consistent argument is

that you defend markets, civil liberties, and defend the constitution. you don't go to war and tell countries how to live. it was this very issue people claimed was hurting me is the reason that people will come out to the tune of 6,000 and 8,000 people on college campuses because they know i'm not going to send these young people off to war or tax them forever or run up the debt to fight wars that are undeclared, unwinnable. and now -- just look at all the countries we are in. that's why they want somebody to take a consistent viewpoint. for some reason, delightfully so, the young people seem to respect that. host: hear from richard, a republican caller in middletown, new york. good morning. caller: good morning, yes, sir. mr. paul, i thank you for your service as a veteran and as a doctor. i'm a veteran. was involved in radioactive cleanup. i got a question and a comment. everybody knows that the federal reserve is the federal express.

watching on the hill there for the audit. i have been following you on the daily poll and shows. and also veterans for ron paul. we know you got more donations than the president and all the other candidates combined from veterans and military. i was wondering if you are going to be able to speak -- going to have the paulfest and i would like to be down there. there ain't no difference between romney and obama. you are the last, i think, honest man on capitol hill. i appreciate what you do. thank you, sir. guest: thank you. i will be speaking at the rally that i'm putting together on sunday, which is on the 26th of august. your point is well taken about the military. the top four categories of donations come from the army, navy, marines, and air force.

those are my top donations. i have been in the military. he's right. i got more money than everybody else put together. because the accusation here in washington is, if you don't vote for the war, if you don't vote for more money, if you don't vote to endorse the policies that got us into war, for some reason are you un-american, unpatriotic, and don't care about the troops. but the litmus test is where are the troops? i was in the military for five years in the 1960's, believe me. i wasn't looking forward to the expansion of the vietnam war and prolongation of the vietnam war, made no sense whatsoever. that's the way the military people are. people join the military for good reasons. they believe in the country. they believe we should have a strong national defense and join the guard units. they join our reserves. they didn't join that so they could go and have three or four, five, six tours of duty to the middle east. not even know while they are there, fighting a war that was undeclared. and never knowing what it's going to -- when it's going to

end. this is something that the young people not only the ones who are in the military, but the ones who are inheriting this mess are very much opposed to. host: tom, independent caller, lawrence, kansas, welcome. caller: thank you. dr. paul, i honor your commitment to rooting out the criminal currency cartel that fronts through the federal reserve and it's high treezetreaston and finance that weaponizes the american people and people of the planet. and i would like to ask you straighten out your record in terms of foreign policy, because in many ways i honor what i see as your noninterventionist foreign polcy, which should actually be called a do no harm foreign polcy. as we know every single war that is start -- policy. as we know every single war that is started by the united states of america is done through fraudulent and deceptive initiating events.

this era it was september 11. and you took an oath to honor the constitution, that includes against domestic enemies. under article 3, section 3 of the constitution it's clear that the fraudulent nature of the september 11 attacks are treason and it goes to the bowels of our national security complex and to the operatives who are -- have infested many of the high positions in the pentagon. and that would include people like michael chertoff. host: a response from congressman paul. do you think that 9/11 was a domestic event as the caller is claiming? guest: no, i don't believe that. but i don't believe the commission helped us. i believe the commission -- commissions whether they are assassination commissions, kennedy assassination commission, or whether it's the commission -- 9/11 commission, i don't think they are set up to get information and really settle this. he has strong beliefs and i'm

morally -- i don't have the information to get to the point where he is. but i am at a point where i don't trust commissions because who is punished? what about the individual, say the f.b.i. agent that reported numerous times, if not dozens of times, why aren't these people learning to fly airplanes but not landing airplanes? he kept saying there is something suspicious. it was totally ignored. but nobody goes through with this and finds out, why was nobody punished. sometimes individuals when this is pointed out they get promotions. our big problem is depending on some of these commissions to sort if all -- sort it of all. i think his point of going to war under false pretenses is a good one. whether it's the spanish american war, even the misinformation on what happened prior to pearl harbor attack. the tonkin, gulf of tonkin

resolution, this whole idea and all the gross distortions about why saddam hussein was about ready to launch a nuclear weapon at as you -- at us. and justified us going in there. i think one of his points was, 9/11 occurred. i voted for the authority to go after those responsible. but iraq had nothing to do with it. that's where we concentrated for 10 years. loss of life. it's probably a million citizens in iraq over the last 20 years or so was a result of our intervention over there. and now total chaos. just listen to the news this morning, more killing going on in iraq. now iraq is aligned with the iranians. it's such a foolish foreign policy. and they go to war under false pretense. they tell stories. and my idea is, follow the constitution the don't go to war unless there is a declaration of war. it's up front. and the congress supports it and the people support it.

then we know why we are there. we know what we are fighting. we'll know when it's over instead of this delay 10, 20 years of involvement around the world. host: congressman ron paul, republican of texas. representing the 14th district. he's been running for president although no longer actively campaigning. has not officially suspended his bid. his path includes libertarian party nomination for president in 1988. he served as an air force flight surgeon, served in the u.s. house. he's a doctor and served in the military in the air force. and the air national guard. we have democratic caller, libertarian more specifically on the line from new jersey. chris joins us. hi. caller: hi. good morning. just want to start off by saying how much we appreciate what you do, dr. paul. i was one of the few who was in philadelphia watching you. it was a magical day.

the economics of the drug policy, i heard you touch on it earlier, it's an issue that is almost under talked about. and definitely want to hear so more people can understand it. from an economic point of view. guest: very good. there is not enough attention paid to it. i do talk about it at times. maybe not enough. but it is a big economic issue. since the 1970's and modern day war on drugs we have spent literally trillions of dollars, $3 trillion to $4 trillion which adds up to the debt. it accomplishes nothing. prohibition doesn't work. it's actually the war on drugs is a lot worse than the prohibition on alcohol. the people who endorse these -- the drug war are the drug dealers and some people who are misled into believing that it's a moral issue and that you can make people moral and be better behaved having these laws. there are other economic issues

other than the debt involved. because there are other special interests. if you take the drug marijuana, the -- one group of people who really don't want to legalize are people who sell alcohol, because actually alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than marijuana. what if people were able to use that and buy as much alcohol. so they have a special interest. also the drug companies. they are selling these pain medications and all kinds of -- >> the house will debate congressman paul's bill this afternoon. also a bill which would expand areas for offshore oil and gas development. now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a meages. -- message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act

provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accord wans this provision, i have -- in accordance with this provision, i have sent the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared with respect to the actions of certain persons to undermine the sovereignty of lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions is to continue in effect beyond august 1, 2012. certain ongoing activities such as continuing arms transfers to hezbollah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems undermine lebanese sovereignty, contribute to political and economic instability in the region and continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on august 1,

2010, to deal with that threat and the related measures adopted on that date to respond to the emergency. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 738 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 151, house resolution 738, 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. 4078, to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0%.

the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waved -- waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committees on the judiciary and oversight and government reform now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-28, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute

rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, 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. 6082, to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period under the outer continental shelves act president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf oil, gas leasing program, 2012-2017. with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation and increased domestic energy production to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against

consideration 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 natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-29. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part c of 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 divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an -- to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i

yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's recognized. ms. foxx: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 738 is a structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 6082, the congressional replacement of president obama's energy restricting and job limiting offshore drilling plan, the natural resources committee, chairman hastings, and seven other bills that will be considered as a single package. including mine, h.r. 373, the unfunded mandate information and transparency act. h.r. 438, the regulatory freeze for jobs act by mr. griffin, h.r. 4607, the midnight rule relief act, by mr. ribble, h.r.

386 , the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act by mr. quayle. h.r. 4377, the rapid act by mr. ross of florida. h.r. 2308, the sequester regulatory accountability act by -- s.e.c. regulatory accountability act by mr. garrett. and a bill by mr. conaway to approve consideration by the commodities future trading commission of the cost and benefits of its regulations and orders. h.r. 6082 is a bill to replace the obama administration's final offshore drilling plan announced on june 28 which keeps 85% of america's offshore areas offlimits to energy production with one that would establish a timeline for 29 specific leases, some of which are not open for drilling under the obama plan. the legislation would also require the interior department to prepare a multi-lease

environmental impact statement for any leases required under the bill not in the june, 2012, plan. the remaining bills are rolled into one package and while each has its own unique use, they're all intended to provide for federal regulatory relief. h.r. 373 is a culmination of nearly five years of work to build on the success of the unfunded mandates reform act or umra, which is a bipartisan initiative that is not -- that has not been modernized since its inception in 1995. given the support for regulatory reform, my hope is that president obama will support my bill which incorporates many of his ideas including those embodied in executive order 13563. mr. speaker, so often we thank people for working on our legislation and for working in the congress, only at the time that they retire. but i want to give some thanks today for the hard work that's been done, particularly on h.r. 373.

there's an enormous amount of work that has gone into bringing this bill to the floor. i'd first like to thank branden, my legislative director, who has worked with us for over five years. i thank kristen nelson and peter warren with the house oversight and government reform committee for providing the diligence and creative thinking needed to shape the product we're considering today. i also thank ryan little, austin smite, daniel flores, for their help shepherding this bill through the various committees of jurisdiction. it's this kind of cooperation that's necessary to ensure the proper functioning of this legislative body. i thank chairman dale issa for bringing this bill to the oversight and government reform committee. he's providing extraordinary leadership for that committee and our country. but it's my colleague and good friend, congressman james lankford, the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, subcommittee on technology, information policy,

intergovernment relations and procurement reform who deserves most praise. mr. lankford's doinged work and determination to build upon and improve upon my initiative is only one demonstration of his keen intellect and exceptional legislative ac men. for a -- acman. for a freshman with no prior experience to have received such immense respect by peers of both parties further underscores his professionalism and aimble personality. undoubtably this house would be better off if it were filled with legislators as serious about seeking tangible solutions to problems as mr. lankford and mr. issa. mr. speaker, it's on that note that i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the

customary 30 minutes. i'd like to address just very briefly and that is that when we began this session of congress, we were advised by our republican colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and discuss them. this is a structured rule that does contemplate the opportunity for many members to participate, but it isn't an open rule and what it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled six distinctly different measures, evidenced by the number of thanks that had to come from dr. foxx to the various committees. i do agree with the one, dr. foxx, where you thank the young man from creating -- for creative thinking. this is out of the box when it comes to us as far as process is concerned being creative, cobbling six pieces of legislation with another to make seven is a bit much. this rule provides for consideration of h.r. 4078, the

red tape reduction and small business act of 2012, and h.r. 6082, which has such a long and convoluted name that the calls to the government to simply prep the bill may require the republican majority to raise the debt ceiling. what the red tape bill should be called, mr. speaker, is the eliminate the government's ability to protect its own citizens act of 2012 because that is what the radical legislation, creative though one may think it is, aims to do. under this legislation federal agencies would be prohibited from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6%. and i defy any economist or anybody else in the world that tells me when that's going to be in an economy such as the one we have. so too would new regulations be

prohibited between election day in early november and inauguration day in late january. for the past two years the republican majority has been spending its time booing everything it seems to me to crash the economy by defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care protections made in decades and turning sensible decisions about women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution. . now it appears that perhaps struggling americans have finally managed to capture the republicans' attention. except that the majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will actually create jobs but instead to gut the federal government's efforts to protect the health and safety of american citizens. i realize that in the fantasy

world inhabited by some far right ideologues, allowing polluters to run amuck is tanlt mount -- tantamount to creating jobs. allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense of public health and safety is somehow good governance. and enabling the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultrawealthy is somehow a shining example of the american spirit. but i have to ask under this legislation, where will these new jobs come from? i suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children since the f.d.a. will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula. we will need caregivers, i'm sure, willing to provide free care for older americans as medicare will be unable to

change its payment to providers. and we'll need new water treatment plant workers as corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful chemicals into our drinking water as they have for years. if i sound extreme, mr. speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. a blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to grow our economy. the f.d.a., the e.p.a., and veterans administration, these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless recovery. what is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the american people. rather than preventing the federal government from ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that deal nates saltwater.

we ought to be invested in economic development projects in the national infrastructure in clean energy technology. in education, and in the kinds of programs that support those americans who are struggling the hardest. the c.e.o., big polluters, aren't one of those in need, but speaking of c.e.o.'s out of touch with everyday americans, it was mitt romney who said until 2009 that, and i quote him, you have to have regulation, end of quote. he said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and effective and that republicans, and i quote mr. romney again, misspeak when they say they don't like regulations. i guess what mitt romney calls

misspeak other people might call outright ridiculous, because that is what the ideology behind this bill is. it is as ridiculous a notion that yes, more drilling for oil will somehow drilling in these places where places like b.p. can -- companies like b.p. can cause the kinds of incidents we saw in the gulf that somehow this is going to benefit the country. it won't. other bills to be considered under this rule is just the latest manifestation of the republican energy doctrine. only drilling all the time and everywhere. this legislation does exactly two things, it tears up slirle protection and it further -- environmental protection and it further inriches oil company executives. the house under the republican majority has taken 142 pro oil and gas drilling votes this congress.

using the hourly cost of voting in the house as calculated by the congressional research service, the more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody in this house knew were going nowhere when they left this house, we have spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating. and these are the people that will tell me they want to cut costs. i suppose, mr. speaker, that there is always a chance that the republicans will achieve success the 143rd time in additional hours that they try something. but once again the majority's efforts reflect a doinged determination -- dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only to reward the wealthiest corporation. we are already drilling at historic levels in this country. the united states is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire rest of the

world combined. 70% of offshore areas currently leased are not even active yet. this legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the average american. it does not mandate that oil drills in the united states. mr. markey brought an amendment that allowed if it's going to be drilled here it ought to stay here. but this legislation doesn't allow for it to even be sold in the united states. in fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder, similar to what's going to happen with keystone when it's completed, on the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies while sticking the american public with the bill. i recently saw an editorial cartoon, and in the cartoon a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if climate change is indeed a hoax but we achieve

energy independence anyway? that we preserve the environment anyway? that we create green jobs anyway? and livable cities and have cleaner air and water? the answer of course is that we will all be better off. republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere will not sustain the american economy nor provide the kind of economic prosperity that will benefit all americans. as i have said before and i repeat again, i'll be the class person standing against drilling in the offshore of florida. at the same time, preventing the federal government from acting on behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. it won't return the

unemployment rate to 6%, and it won't send a signal to the american public that their elected representatives are abling minding public reform. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i just would like to point out to my colleague from florida that we certainly agree on our side of the aisle with governor romney that we need regulations. these bills don't do away with all regulations. we obviously, republicans know you need government. we just want some common sense brought into our government. we want a cost benefit analysis done to rules and regulations. after all, we are here, we are breathing the air, we are drinking the water, we are eating the food. our children, our grandchildren are, too. it doesn't make any sense that these tired old accusations against republicans that we

don't care anything about our environment or our food because we are here living with them also. so, i don't think the american people are going to buy the arguments that my colleague made. i now would like to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to ms. foxx and my colleague as well for kind introduction on that. all aspects of this bill, each part of it, has gone through the committee process. multiple of them have had multiple hearings related to that. there's been plenty of opportunity to be able to allow for input and votes through the traditional committee process on this. the reality is, red tape is strangling our businesses. each day they wake up and they are worried about what the federal government is going to do to them rather than what the federal government is going to do for them. there is an appropriate role for the federal government for

regulation. but it seems like there's a never-ending acceleration of regulations, not just small but they get larger and larger and more and more expensive and more and more nonsensical at times. let me give you one quick example on it. community bankers that are facing hundreds of new regulations, when the problems seem to be the largest investment banks, who got hit the hardest with the regulations was the community banks. now community banks have to step aside, a bapping that may have 14 to 20 employees, $50 million or less in total assets is a very small rural bank, has to go and prove that these rules don't apply to them. itnvolves them hiring outside attorneys, involves setting aside staff to prove these hundreds of rules don't apply to them. they are not a big bank. regulations passed on this them. death by a thousand paper cuts is how they explain it to me. simplicities and common sense

needs to be applied into how we do regulations. and when there is no check and balance in the regulatory environment, it needs to have that. now, the other side seems to assume that occasionally americans are in need of daily oversight by the federal government. that unless some federal bureaucrat or some federal regulators not standing next to their bed when they get up, they won't know how to get to work. when they get to work they are going to cheat their neighbor. on the way home they are going to cheat another neighbor so we are better with federal regulators standing right next to them because american citizens can't be trusted to do the right thing without federal control. i would say the neighbors that i live around and the cities i visited all over america have great citizens who want to do the right thing and are doing the right thing. and are serving their neighbor. we have great city and state governments. they are doing very good regulatory schemes. we should trust them more. to engage in what they are doing in the community that

they live in. where they eat the food, drink the water. they are the first line of defense on that rather than taking all those things to washington, d.c., and assuming all americans can't function without someone from washington, d.c., checking on them each and every day. let me give you a couple things on that. the first hearing that i participated in here in this congress, someone from the other side extold the benefits of adding more regulations because companies were sitting on money and not spending it and this was a way to force companies to hire additional people, by hiring compliance officers. they would hire people to oversee regulations. if we can't increase employment in america through producing more goods and services, we would by creating more bureaucrats just in the private bigs. -- business. that's not how i see you should grow an economy. let me just highlight one area. one title of this great bill. title 4 is the unfunded mandate transparency act of 2011. this watts a bill that started in the previous congress with

ms. virginia foxx as the officer. we picked it up in the oversight government reform committee and did three hearings on it at the beginning of last year. we had city leaders, tate and -- state and county leaders, private business leaders, and administration individuals from this administration and previous administration come and testify. in 1995 the house and the senate and president siped a bill called the unfunded mandates reform act. it was a wide bipartisan act. 394 votes in the house. 91 votes in the senate. to give information to the house and senate before its decisions were made about what is an unfunded mandate and what effect will that have. there are large loopholes that have been exploited in the last 17 years. this bill aims to fix those loopholes. it takes in all the independent agencies and also puts them under the same requirement. it puts in the language that president clinton put in in executive order 12866, to clarify this that the administration's functioned

under. it puts that language and code phi it is from president clinton into this bill. it also takes a clarification of president obama that he has for this bill and also adds it into the language. it redefines direct costs with how c.b.o. already defines direct cost, and actually codifies that language and provides ability. it allows for a ranking member or chairman of a committee to do an analysis of a rule to make sure that it's not exceeding or our unfunded mandates requirement. it's very bipartisan. it's not just the chairman. chairman tore ranking member can -- or ranking member can get to that. it is an intent to clean this up and make sure congress has the information to make the decisions. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina reserve. ms. foxx: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from florida, my good friend, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker i thank my good friend

from florida and rules committee for yielding time. i rise to oppose the rule and underlying bill, particularly h.r. 6082, because that bill unreasonably expands offshore drilling without the corresponding and necessary safety standards. . the republicans are ignoring the lessons that we learned after the b.p. deepwater horizon blowout. again, they're putting the profits of the oil companies ahead of the safety and larger economic concerns of families and businesses all across our great country. i mean, certainly memories cannot be so short that we don't remember the devastation caused by the b.p. deepwater horizon blowout and disaster, that oil spewed for months and months. they could not cap the well and in the meantime it caused

serious economic damage, not just to my home state of florida and the terrorism industry and fishing and -- tourism industry and fishing and hotels and restaurants, but all across the gulf coast and all across the country. i recall very well, prior to the blowout they said it was safe. they said drilling in deep water and offshore is safe. there haven't been very many accidents. but they were wrong. i remember tony hayward came in front of our committee and he said, we will -- we were wrong, we didn't anticipate this would happen. well, you've got to anticipate that it can happen and fortunately in the aftermath we appointed a blue ribbon commission, the national commission on b.p. deepwater horizon blowout, they issued their report in january of 2011, they had many recommendations from experts on how you make offshore drilling safe. the congress has not acted on

any of those recommendations. to make it safe. and yet in this bill they press ahead to open even more areas for oil drilling. that's not right. and you're putting our economy and our environment at risk when you do so. this was a great commission by the way because they didn't just stop there, they've issued progress reports along the way. i know people oftentimes don't like report cards, but -- and the congress is not going to like this report card. they've broke continue down into safety and environmental protections -- broken it down into safety and environmental protections, under safety and environmental protections they say congress has done nothing to make permanent the improvements that have been made by industry and the obama administration. we've got to enact these into law before we go forward with more offshore drilling and new and -- in new and pristine areas. they say congress has provided little support for response and containment. if we're going to expand

drilling, and it certainly has to be part of our energy portfolio, we're going to have to be able to respond to a disaster and yet congress has done nothing there. it says that although the administration has provided increases in funding to oversight, congress has taken little action to address the unrealistic limits on liability. who is going to pay? it shouldn't be the taxpayers that pay for these disasters. and right now they have not adjusted the outrageous liability limits that the companies have. what you're doing is you're really thumbing your nose, you're turning a blind eye to the hard work done by the commission, the commission that proposed to protect us if we're going to rely on offshore oil. and i think it's going to be part of our portfolio. so why not adopt reasonable safety standards? i know some of my colleagues say, well, you don't like red tape. i don't like red tape either. but this isn't red tape. these are vital environmental

and economic safety standards to ensure that the $60 billion tourism industry in florida is maintained. those are hard working folks, good jobs back home. the hotels and motels, even though the oil was coming out of the ocean 350 miles away, their business fell off. and all we ask is that simple safety standards be adopted. mr. markey and mr. holt have proposed some of those amendments. the republicans rejected other ones. we need to adopt these. otherwise it's irresponsible to press ahead with expansive new deepwater drilling in deeper areas, in pristine areas. these recommendations are reasonable. and if the republican congress cannot take up reasonable safety standards in the wake of one of the worst economic and environmental disasters in our history then i'd hate to say what's at risk for this great country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from north carolina. mr. speaker, recent economic indicators show that another recession is a real danger. consumer confidence is plummeting, businesses aren't hiring and recovery continues to slow. real unemployment is at 14.9% and millions of americans have given up hope. the world bank reports that the u.s. is now 13th in the world when measuring the ease of starting a new business. in 2010 we were ranked third -- 2007 we were ranked third. manufacturing shrank for the first time in two years. economists are reviving their growth projections downward. inflation looms on the horizon and europe's sovereign debt crisis continues on abated. some of the circumstances that led to this -- unabated. some of the circumstances that led to this crisis are out of anybody's control but many of these circumstances are not.

policymakers in washington have an obligation to our constituents and to this country to work together to create an environment where the american people prosper. we have such an opportunity today. the red tape reduction and small business job creation act takes a balanced approach towards regulatory reforms that are desperately needed in today's market. for 25 years before i was elected i was a small businessman. i started a business not because the government program or government lending -- in fact i couldn't even have a bank to loan me money, i borrowed money from a friend and grew that business to 27 employees. and i didn't do it because there were good bridges and roads next door to me. i saw a need, i took a risk and worked harder than the next guy. i also knew rules and understood that government was the referee, not the player. today the regulatory climate and nature of many government agencies create uncertainty. some falsely claim that certainty has nothing to do with our current economic crisis.

mr. speaker, economics is a much a behavioral science as anything. when businesses don't know when the next regulatory hurdle will be, they won't invest. the chamber of commerce has done a studdy of small businesses in florida. the results were clear. uncertainty is the number one issue facing job creators and entrepreneurs. right now there is a -- there are projects waiting on the sideline that will employ some 1.9 million jobs annually in this country. talk about a shot in the arm to the economy. the only thing certain about this president has been the uncertainty that he has provided in the regulatory reform and tax reform for small bills. take my home state of florida, for example. according to the research by the u.s. chamber of commerce, there's potential for 121,000 jobs there if we have regulatory certainty. and the first year of operations, businesses could generate over $2 billion in employment earnings. this bill is not about generating profits for fat cats and big oil.

but how do i know? because i've seen a a project in my area come to a halt because of a litigious activist group. 200 blue collar jobs, secretaries and machinists and more. seven years of permits and review, only to have a lawsuit one month later. request 30 additional seconds. ms. foxx: i yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman. mr. ross: thank you. only to have a lawsuit kill the dreams of a better life for my neighbors. mr. speaker, one thing i know is that government before it gives to someone must take from someone else. this legislation presents solutions that are sensible and immediately effective. my neighbors are tired of the regulatory burden. i'm tired of the regulatory burden. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i would say to my good friend

and colleague from florida, when he speaks about 10,000 jobs that may have been created, vernor rick scott categorically rejected money for light rail between the i-4 corridor of orlando and tampa that would have definitely produced 18,000 jobs. can't have it both ways. you can't one minute say that you don't want something and then the next minute say that some fictional number is going to take place that's a magic bullet. we worked hard to get that money appropriated and the last statement that he made was that you can't give something unless you get something. well, they got from florida and that money went to the east coast corridor, to california, to illinois and i'm not certain about whether any of it went to kentucky, but i'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared

to address that. i yield two minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my friend there from florida. and, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule which if enacted will block united states' service members and veterans from getting the best care and services we can offer. in the rules committee i offered an amendment to exempt from the proposed moratorium any regulation that is related to the health and safety of the united states service members and veterans. i did so because i believe, as i'm certain all of my colleagues do, that service members and veterans are best served when the agencies that serve them can provide critical treatment and assistance in a timely and responsive manner. doing so often requires writing new rules and regulations. we should not, for example, block a new regulation that allows the v.a. to provide medical or other benefits to caregivers of veterans and service members. in exchange for a new talking point about the economy.

my colleagues on the oversight and government reform committee agreed. my amendment was unanimously approved in a bipartisan fashion. and yet inexplicably republicans are blocking it from a full vote. suddenly they're ready to let our commitments to our heroes lapts and for what? -- lapse and for what? a new talking point? over the next five years more than one million veterans will return home from war. part of our commitment to them must be to ensure that they have the best services available, whether that's in health care, job training or educational benefits. mr. speaker, most legislation has unanticipated consequences. this legislation has a consequence that is easily anticipated and that is that we will be tying the hands of the agencies that serve our brave men and women in the armed services. i ask any one of my republican colleagues from the rules committee to explain why this amendment wasn't made in order and why this rule is not -- is sending a message to our military and veterans that they

aren't entitled to the best we have. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. as i often do when i'm handling a rule, i have to make sure that the public understands the facts . it's my understanding that the amendment that the gentleman spoke of that was adopted in the committee and then presented in the way that it was presented for this bill was not germane. and i need to point out to the public that it is not the majority, it wasn't the republicans who decided the amendment wasn't injury many -- germane, it's our parliamentarians who are nonpartisan. i'd now like to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my colleague from texas, representative canseco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for --

mr. canseco: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank the gentlelady from north carolina. i rise today in strong support of the rule for h.r. 4078. the regulatory freeze for jobs act is an important piece of legislation that will ensure the government does not stand in the way of america's job creators. i have the honor of representing a district that reaches from san antonio, texas, to el paso, texas. including nearly 800 miles of u.s.-mexico board. -- border. so when i head home for a work period, my days are spent on the road meeting with diverse groups of small businessmen, entrepreneurs, community bankers, farmers, energy producers, teachers and law enforcement agency agents. the -- agents. the most common theme that i hear from my constituents, where they are democrat or republican, conservatives or liberals, to the left or to the right, is that the federal government is intrusive and standing in the way of job creation by issuing

job-killing regulations. one constituent even sent a letter to my office on how regulations and high energy costs are impacting his family and he writes, our family is on a fixed income. it has become a hardship to buy gasoline. now with the coal mines being shut down our electric bills are going to go through the roof. i guess the wife and i will have to get a block of ice and a box of -- a box fan to stay cool this summer. since president obama took office we have seen a 52% increase in regulations deemed economically significant which means a regulation costs the economy at least $100 million annually. and according to a september, 2010, report from the small business administration, total regulatory cost amounts to $1.75 trillion annually. enough money for businesses to provide $35 million private

sector jobs -- 35 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. in the midst of an economic downturn in which the unemployment rate has been above 8% for 41 consecutive months, 35 million private sector jobs is a very significant amount of jobs. the legislation we begin to consider today is an important step in the right direction to provide certainty to our nation's job creators so they can start hiring again and get our economy back on track. . it is amazing this year alone the federal register, where rules and regulations are published for the public to view, has seen more than 41,000 pages alone devoted to this regulatory explosion. these regulations would cost $56 billion and result in paperwork burden that would take 14 million hours to complete, and -- 114 million hours to complete, that's working 1 hours a day, seven days a week for 1 years.

imagine if there were 114 million paperwork hours were spent on building roads, issuing loans, expanding small businesses, and selling products instead of pushing paperwork across the desk to please a government regulator. from regulating farm dust, stock tanks, and streams on private property, keeping young people off the farm, and imposing the most expensive rules ever on the energy sector, nothing is off limits for the out-of-control regulators in this administration. the house of representatives has had some success in reining in job killing regulations. right now it's still a good time to go to work for the federal government as a regulator in washington, d.c., because it's hiring. if we want more jobs on main street, we need less red tape from bureaucrats and other regulators in washington, d.c. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 12

minutes remaining. the gentlelady from north carolina has 12 minutes remaining. mr. hastings:00 thank you -- mr. hastings:00 -- mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield to my good friend mr. courtney whose state did benefit from that money that was to go to florida as appropriated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule in favor of the so-called regulatory freeze bill which will act as a chain saw. going through parts of the government that have absolutely nothing to do with small business or small business job creation, and i say that as a former small employer. one of the regulates -- regulations which will be butchered is the income-based repayment program which the department of education is now in the middle of fashioning which will provide low payment relief for people paying title 4 student loans. for a teacher making $25,000 a year with maybe about $20,000 a year in student loan debt, that program will reduce monthly payments by $100 a month.

that is real help for people who are contributing to the u.s. economy. allowing that regulation to go forward will not hurt the u.s. economy. in fact, it will provide more basis for that future to go out and sur -- teacher to go out and survive and spend new money on new housing, car loans, etc. yet this bill in the name of job creation will knock down the income based repayment program -- could i have 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional 30 seconds. mr. courtney: the income based repayment program trying to provide student loan relief at a time when student loan debt in this country now exceeds $1 trillion. higher than credit card debt. higher than car loan debt. it is a commonsense program fully paid for. the student aid and fiscal responsibility act signed into law in 2010 offset every nickel of cost in the income-based repayment program. yet here we are debating a bill at a time of crisis for middle class families because of student loan debt denying them

needed relief which will help the u.s. economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the rule before us today provides for consideration of my bill, h.r. 373, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act, as i mentioned before. while working on this legislation over the years, i have come to appreciate that the subject matter is not one of the most thrilling ever to be considered by this house. in fact i'm confident that reading a summary of my bill would provide an effective remedy for even the most stubborn case of insomnia. some have compared observing the legislative process with that of making sausage. admittedly in the case of my bill, it more closely resembles watching paint dry. nor do i expect many in the media will sell many advertisements dissecting

legislation entitled the unfunded mandates information and transparency act. however this certainly does not diminish the meaning or value of this important work. by collaborating with the house oversight and government reform committee, we have worked to create a comprehensive legislative package that promotes the principles of good government, accountability, and transparency that my constituents sent me to congress to represent. these principles have been a top priority of mine throughout my legislative career starting in the north carolina state senate. very simply h.r. 373 advances these priorities by drawing upon bipartisan initiatives to expand access to information. the legislative text itself identifies the stated purpose of h.r. 373, it's improving, quote, the quality of the deliberations of congress with respect to proposed federal mandates by providing congress and the public with more

complete information about the effects of such mandates. ensuring that congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on their effect while enhancing the ability of congress and the public to identify federal mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments. but it does so much more than that. the strength of the bill is that it serves to inform more fully decisionmakers engaged in the policymaking process while letting effective state and local governments and those in the private sector who must put washington dictates into practice know what's coming and better participate in the process. many provisions of the bl simply codify, clarify, and streamline existing practice. others enhance the purpose of armor by applying its disclosure requirements to more circumstances while initiating

more complete details useful and accurate cost estimates to expose otherwise hidden costs. yet others still protect legislative intent by closing loopholes in current law, allowing enterprising rule makers to circumvent disclosure requirements when imposing costly mandates. all of these provisions are harmonized in a way that provides something for everyone which unfortunately is a rare legislative virtue. yet underscores the unique opportunity members of both parties have to vote for a modest yet effective legislative solution. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would advise the gentlelady that i'm going to be the last speaker and i'm prepared to close. ms. foxx: that will be fine with me, mr. speaker. if the gentleman is prepared to close, i will have some more

comments to make and then i can close. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, if we could go back to the days when government was helpless against the robber barons who abused our public resources, we could go back to the days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued profit above individual health and safety. and we could go back to the days when un-elected ollie good morning, everybodies drove this nation's destiny rather than democratically elected government representing the of the american public. prohibiting federal agencies from carrying out necessary and essential public protection will not create new jobs. it will not boost our economy. it will not protect the most

vulnerable and disadvantaged american in a time of extraordinary uncertainty. drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. it won't even provide much benefit unless you consider further enriching oil executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling americans. what americans need is government that is willing to invest in its citizens. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that congress will not adjourn until the president signs middle class tax cuts into law. we have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98% of americans who

make less than $450,000. this should not be a partisan fight. this is what we were elected to do. we should not adjourn into august recess while american families across this country are trying to make ends meet. it is imperative that congress act on behalf of families across this nation and bring them the certainty and security that their taxes will not go up in six months. i don't know about all of my colleagues here, but i have had the misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions, and the one that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be booingled for newcomers in this institution who do not understand it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last minute before we do

something. we can do it in august. we can give 98% of the american people certainty about their taxes and be assured if they make less than $250,000, that their taxes will not go up in december or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid seeing to it that the bush tax cuts on the 2% of americans that are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children, education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that the middle class has this great need. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the various elements of comprehensive reform contained in title 4 of the underlying bill can be overwhelming, which is why it may be helpful to elaborate on the purpose of some of the most prominent individual provisions within the package. in that light it's important for the american people to understand the oppressive nature and full scope of the costs associated with complying with federal mandates. as a former small business owner, i experienced a myriad of costly, overly burdensome federal mandates and hear from my constituents every day about the challenges that they face in dealing with them. in my position as chairwoman of the house subcommittee on higher education and work force training, i have become familiar with an example of a ridiculous rule that will unnecessarily complicate student access to higher education. as we all know in recent months

students and families have urged congress to act to stem the ever increasing cost of higher education. in response, the obama administration has offered several proposals claiming to reduce student loan debt and rain -- reign in ue contiguous -- rein in tuition. in response higher education officials are crying foul over a 2010 department of education rule establishing a federal definition of a credit hour. higher education personnel believe this regulation will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional federal overreach in the higher education. as we have seen many times before, onerous federal regulations always come with a price, which in this case is paid by students or their parents. it's time to take a comprehensive view of the problems facing our nation higher education system and eliminate burdensome federal

regulations that pile unnecessary costs on institutions and students. rather than getting the federal government further entrenched in higher education, we should be working together to remove costly mandates that a pile unnecessary financial burdenses on colleges and universities. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the 2012 edition of "10,000 commandments" issued by the competitive enterprise institute relative to the explosive growth of regulations by federal agencies in the past two years. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, again i want to say that republicans, contrary to what our colleagues have said across the aisle, are not opposed to all regulations and rules. we are not opposed to government. we understand that we have to have government in order to

have a civil society. we understand that we have to have regulations to protect us in some cases from each other and to make sure that we have an orderly society. . we live in the greatest country in the world, mr. speaker, and we got here not because of the government, but we got here because of the hard working americans who have good values, who love this country and want to see it continue to thrive. we can count on those hard working americans to do the right things in almost every case. what republicans want are commonsense regulations and we want to stop the flood of regulations that have come particularly from this administration and the materials that i have submitted to the record, mr. speaker, will document the unnecessary rules and regulations that have come, particularly in this

administration. we've heard today many reasons for congress and the -- and president obama to pursue federal regulatory reform as a cost-freeway in which the federal government can promote economic growth. we have the worst deficit, the worst debt we've ever had in this country. we have an unemployment rate that is stifling economic growth . what we're proposing here today will help our economy, will help revive our economy, and will bring jobs to this country. this legislative package, with the passage of this rule, represents a variety of ways we can move toward these ends. as americans look to congress for innovative solutions to spur private sector job growth, i call on my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the es have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask the yeas and nays? mr. hastings: yes, i do. 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. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares how it's in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

will then pivot to the house next week, as expected, where they're going to hold their vote and we think there's also going to be a vote on the democratic provision, i.e., the same one i just discussed in the house which will then fail because the republicans control the house and then the house

would pass its version of the bill which would renew all of the current income tax rates for all americans. that will pass on a almost exclusively party line vote and then it will wither in the senate. so really what we're having more is show votes. more political votes, taking out positions. no one expects this is the final word on the subject nor are we going to see new fruition. this before lawmakers leave for recess in 10 days' time. >> you mentioned president obama's middle cut tax proposal for earners of $250,000. when will democrats be allowed to offer that proposal? >> in the senate or the house, sorry? >> both. >> sure. in the senate we expect that the vote will happen this week, as i said, there will be a procedural vote which will be ceded because democrats can't muster enough votes to get over that 60-vote threshold. in the house there's likely to be a vote on that proposal next

week which will be defeated because republicans have a strong majority in the house. you went to a briefing with kevin mccarthy. how did he characterize the house agenda? >> he, as republicans have been for some months now, tried to frame it all in the conversation of jobs and improving the economy. so in addition to the tax cut votes, we're also going to see a continuing of the republican agenda on what they say is rolling back the red tape that is stifling job creation in america. there's going to be votes on tying new regulations to the joblessness mark and there's also going to be an attempt to effectively strap the current obama administration plan on how and when oil and gas exploratory leases are handed down and open up far more parts of offshore drilling or far more parts of offshore to drilling of the exploratory nature. again, both of those votes are likely to pass the house, but

it will go nowhere in the senate. democrats have shown absolutely no proclivity to take up this republican political agenda. >> you mentioned show votes. why are we seeing both chambers debate numerous bills that aren't designed to get approved and become law? >> it's an election year. it's that simple. vote -- both sides are -- think that having their members vote on pieces of legislation which are politically advantageous, which carry their message, is a good thing. and similarly they hope to cast their political opponents in a negative light. taking up the senate tax votes, for example, democrats think that forcing republicans to vote against, even though it's a procedural vote, but essentially to vote against extending tax cuts -- sorry, the current tax rates for all americans helps them out in the various states in which there are senate races that are going to be close. there's a handful of 10, 12 senate races across the country which could tip the balance of

control in the senate next year. senate majority leader harry reid thinks that holding these votes, it helps out his candidates, helps out his incumbent senators in crafting their political message come the november election. >> corey boles. thanks for your time. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senate's gaveled back in to continue consideration of the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. the house should gavel back in shortly. when they do we expect a couple of votes. one of which will be the rule for two bills. one expanding the areas of offshore oil and gas development. another reducing federal regulations. we'll have live house coverage of course here on c-span when the gavel comes down. until then, chris van hollen, the deputy whip, was the budget committee chairman rather was the guest on this morning's "washington journal," talking about campaign finance.

host: thanks for coming in and talking to us. the disclose act was blocked in the senate last week. tell us about the act and whether you think there are changes that could be made, that could win bipartisan support. guest: yes. it was very disappointing that the disclose act was blocked in the senate. it was an example of a republican filibuster essentially that prevented it from coming to a vote. we had a majority of votes in the senate, just couldn't overcome that procedural delaying tactic. the disclose act is very straightforward. and it's been changed to make it very simple. the idea is that voters are a right to know who is bankrolling all those television political commercials that they're watching. and we believe that transparency's important, it adds to accountability in the democratic system. and after all, these groups are

spending millions and millions of dollars to try and influence the outcome of elections for certain purposes. we think voters should know who they are and who's behind them. it's that simple. and what's unfortunate is a lot of our republican colleagues used to be for disclose before they decided to be against it. we'd like to go back to what was a bipartisan idea. disclose. host: let's look at details of that. as we've been talking about, with congressman van hollen, the disclose act requires organizations that spend $10,000 or more to report it within 4 hours and identifies donors who give about $10,000 and it requires the reporting of third-party transfers. are there compromises in sight? you just talked about how you think that it was compromise enough. but are there ways to advance and get it moved forward? guest: we've invited our republican colleagues to come forward with amendments to change the bill. if they want. we've got no takers. so far. and what you've got now among

our republican colleagues unfortunately is opposition to the very concept of disclosure. otherwise they should be coming forward. and offering amendments. if they want to change the threshold levels, you mentioned $10,000, if they want to lower those, that's fine. but again, they have proposed no amendments to this particular bill. senator mcconnell, who is the republican leader in the senate, used to be in favor of disclosure. he said in fact that was the answer to a lot of our campaign finance challenges. he's now flip-flopped and taken the opposite position. so the reality is, unless we change this law, there continue to be lots of groups who want to secretly finance elections. there are two issues in campaign finance. one is the huge volume of money that's pouring in. i think that's an issue people should be concerned about. this is a subset of that issue. this just says, let's stop the secret money that's falling in

the system. let voters know who's behind these campaign ads. host: how do you look at the big picture? how do you deal with that? "u.s.a. today" yesterday shows that while donors for presidential candidate mitt romney are hitting their max, they can then turn to the superpack and give money there. guest: well, the supreme court decision in citizens united, another one in what was called speech now, just opened the flood gates to this kind of funding, unlimited funding. we already had a broken campaign finance system in my view. this just made it worse. and there are only a couple of ways to address the issue. one is to at least require disclosure. second is to look at campaign finance reform, to try and reduce big money in the system, by incentivizing smaller contributions. and there are ways to do that. there are different pieces of

legislation that would help do that. another possibility is a constitutional amendment which would essentially overturn the very bad and very radical decisions in citizens united which has said corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money just like people. but the constitutional amendment obviously is not going to happen tomorrow. that will require a process. the one thing where there at least is consensus among the public eye is the idea of disclosure. and so it's unfortunate that in the congress you have a republican colleagues blocking that. host: here are some recent numbers from opensecrets.org on superpac spending. 680 groups organized as superpacs and the total receipts are in the range of $318 million which independent expenditures of $155 million. if you'd like to talk with congressman chris van hollen, here are the numbers to to call. republicans, 202-737-0002 and

independent callers, 202-628-0205. let's go to fort bragg, north carolina, for felix on the democrats' line. hi. caller: congressman, c-span and america. good morning, how are you on this wonderful day? guest: very well, thanks. caller: i'm a democrat since 1964 because when the republicans started dividing america with their seven strategy, i couldn't put up with that. >> the u.s. house gaveling back in for votes. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 738, and adopting house resolution 738, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering preast question on house resolution 738 -- previous question on

house resolution 738 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk: house calendar number 151. house resolution 738. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4078, to provide that no agency may take any signature regulatory action until the up employment rate is equal to or less than 6.0%, and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6082, to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period under the outer continental shelf lands act, president obama's proposed final outer con-- continental oil shelf 2012, with a plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas resales to provide offshore energy development, and increase necessaryic energy production to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 2378, the nays are 17 -- 238, the nays are 177.

the previous question is ordered. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, if i could ask for unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here with a lot of sadness with my friends from the colorado delegation. we're pretty -- we're democrats and republicans, a pretty tight knit group. we had a terrible incident in aurora, colorado, friday. you are well aware of it. 12 people were killed. 58 were wounded.

and it is with sadness and grief that we come before you today. as our governor said at the villingle -- vigil on sunday night, we will remember these 12 and those who were shot. but there was a silver lining in this very, very dark moment in the history of colorado. and we saw bravery and selflessness and heroism among the people that were in that theater that night and any one of us can tell you stories of how people, to complete strangers, were willing to give up their own lives to save the life of the stranger next to them. and, you know, in times when it is difficult like that, you want to find bright spots and there

were many. another bright spot was the courage demonstrated by the aurora police and the fire department and the f.b.i. and the a.t.f. in the face of what was a monstrous action by this guy. in colorado we consider ourselves to be pretty tough. auroraans, the way we were -- where this act took place, pretty tough. it hurts. we all hurt. but we're resilient and we will get through it and the stories that some of those who are injured are sharing actually really do lighten the day. and know any one of us would be happy to talk to you all about that. but there has been a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and condolences and compassion from all of you.

and i know i speak on behalf of our entire delegation to thank you for thinking about us and where we live in our community, because we are in this together and we just thank you very much. so i ask that all of you stand with me and our delegation in a moment of silence to honor the memory of those that were killed , the wounded victims and all americans during this time of healing and as i said once before, and as our governor said, we will remember these people who were hurt and we will help them all along the way.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

is

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 170. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 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 the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of

rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the house will be in order. would members clear the aisles, clear the well, take your conversations off the floor so

that the house can be in order? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 459 as

amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 441, h.r. 459, a bill to require a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks by the comptroller general of the united states before the end of 2012, and for other purposes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. once again, will members clear the aisles and the well?

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 459, the federal reserve transparency act, directs the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the federal reserve. the dodd-frank legislation mandated the g.a.o. audit of the fed, but that audit issued

by the government accountability office in july of 2011, focused solely on the issues concerning emergency credit facility. g.a.o. remains restricted under current law from conducting a broader audit of the fed that includes, for instance, a review of the fed's monetary policy operations and its agreements with foreign governments and central banks. the bill remedies this statutory permitting g.a.o. -- permitting g.a.o. the investigative arm of congress to conduct a nonpartisan audit that will review all of these transactions. the findings of the audit are to be reported to congress. in particular, it is appropriate that we consider this legislation at this time. while congress should not manage or micromanage details of monetary policy, it needs to be able to conduct oversight of the fed. the fed was created by congress

to be the central bank, independent of the influence of the u.s. treasury. it has never and was never intended to in fact be independent of congress or independent of the american people. in recent years the fed's extraordinary interventions into the economy's fiscal market has led some to call into question its independence. we do not ask for an audit for that reason. we ask for an audit because the american people ultimately must be able to hold the fed accountable and to do so they must know at least in retrospect what the fed has done over these many years that it has been without an audit. that is why i support h.r. 459, a bipartisan bill with mine and 273 other co-sponsors. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, when the sponsor of the bill talk about auditing the federal reserve, they don't mean a traditional audit. an outside independent accounting firm already audits the federal reserve's annual statements and g.a.o. is already empowered to review the annual statements and a broad range of its functions. in fact, the wall street reform legislation passed last congress, there is transparency and accountability when it comes to the federal reserve's finances and operations. however, this bill would instead jeopardize the fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to g.a.o.

audit. the fed, like every other major central bank in the world, is independent, and congress has rightly insulated the fed from short-term political pressures. i agree with chairman bernanke that congressional review of the fed's monetary policy decisions would be a, quote, nightmarish scenario, especially judging the track record of intervening in the courts and other areas. we don't have to look further than the congress unnecessarily taking the country to the brink of default last summer in a display of politics. all of us, mr. speaker, want transparency. all of us here want to make sure that the federal reserve is working to carry out the economic goals of the american people, which are maximum employment and price stability, but that's not what this bill is about. this bill increases the likelihood that the fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not

a recipe for sound monetary policy. i urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and preserve the independence of the fed so it can keep our currency stable and cultivate the best conditions for our economy to grow and create jobs. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we in congress have shown too frequently our inability in a political environment to make tough choices. that failure has led us in part to where we are today. i urge my colleagues to defeat this unwarranted, unjustified and dangerous legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's now my honor to yield time to the author of this bill, the gentleman from texas, the man who understands that not knowing should never be an answer, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. issa: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise obviously in strong

support of this legislation. i don't know how anybody could be against transparency and they want secrecy, especially when the secrecy is to protect individuals who deal in trillions of dollars, much bigger than what the congress does, and these trillions of dollars bail out all the wealthy , rich people, the banks and the big corporations, international, overseas banks, bailing out europe, dealing with central banks around europe, around europe, and different places. and so say that we should have secrecy and say that it's political to have transparency, well, it's very political when you have a federal reserve that can bail out one company and not another company. that's pretty political. i know when people talk about independence and having this privacy of the central bank, it means they want secrecy and secrecy is not good. we should have privacy for the individual, but we should have openness of government all the time. and we drifted a long way from

that. the billie essentially removes the -- the bill essentially removes the prohibition against a full audit. to audit we should know what kind of transactions are we should know about the deals that they made -- are. we should know about the deals they made when they were fixing the price of libor. these are the kind of things that were going on for years and we have no access to. so congress has this responsibility. we are reneging on our responsibility, we have the responsibility and we have not done it. so it is up to us to reassert ourselves. the constitution's very clear who has the responsibility. but the law conflicts with the constitution. the law comes along and says the congress can't do it. well, you can't change the constitution, prohibit the congress from finding out what's going on by writing a law. and this is what has happened. so it is time that we repeal this prohibition against a full audit of the federal reserve. we deserve it.

the american people deserve it. the american people know about it and understand it and that's what they're asking for. they're sick and tired of what happened in the bailout and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a bad idea and i'm somewhat confused. by the way, we will be debating tomorrow a bill which restricts rule making and exempts the federal reserve as i read it. so we're kind of on again, off again about the federal reserve. it seems to me what we're talking about is taking some thick punches at the federal reserve but not doing anything serious. my republican colleagues brought up a reconciliation bill that was going to subject the consumer bureau to appropriations. so i offered an amendment to subject the federal reserve to

appropriations. that was voted down. so we're not going to restrict their rulemaking, we're not going to subject them to appropriations, even though that's being done elsewhere, we're going to audit them. which is a way to look tough without really being tough. does the gentleman want me to yield? mr. paul: i would. mr. frank: i yield. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. would you suggest that we should do both of those -- mr. frank: no. i will take back my time and say we should do none of them. i have a consistent position. i don't think we should do any of them. what i'm saying is people who get up there and beat their chest about how tough they are and they're not afraid of the federal reserve, but it exempt it from the great rule making bill and subject the consumer bureau, that terrible thre to the well-being of americans through the appropriations process, but let the federal reserve, which spends about $1 -- 150 times as much go free, i am inclined to doubt their seriousness. not their purity. that would be a violation of the rules. but their seriousness. this is a way to shake your fist at that big bad fed and it's not

a good way. we hear a lot about uncertainty. remember, the federal reserve is now subject to a complete openness about all of its transactions with private companies. we did that last year. the gentleman from texas had a major role in that. when the federal reserve deals with any other institution we know what it does. we don't know it necessarily the same day. there were predictions about what terrible things were going to happen when the federal reserve did this and that and they haven't come true. maybe they will someday. but we will know it. this makes this exception, it says that we will audit the decisions about monetary policy. it says that members who vote on what the interest rates should be will now be audited. they will be subject to being quized about why they did that. now, i will tell my democrat friends, i understand that one part of this problem is the objection on the part of the republican party to the fact that our federal reserve, unusual among central banks, has

a dual mandate. they are charged under a statute to be concerned about inflation and about unemployment. now, the republicans have an agenda that, they keep it on low keep keystone x.l. until next year, but they would -- keep it on low key until next year, but they would like to strip that part of the mandate. they would like the federal reserve to be only involved with inflation. they don't like that they deal with unemployment. this is a way, if it ever were to become law, no one thinks it is. look how tough we are, we're going to wave our fist at the fed. but it would be way to kind of put pressure on members of the open market committee and see what -- are you worried about unemployment when you did this? that's the audit. in this has nothing to do with how they spend their money. it has nothing to do with whom they contract. that's what people usually think about audit. it has nothing to do with the way in which -- whether they're efficient or not. it's an ideological agenda by a group of people who didn't like what the federal reserve was

doing, under by the way george bush, there was reference to the bailouts which of course were under the bush administration. one of the things we did in the bill two years ago, all my republican colleagues voted against the bill, was to take away from the federal reserve the power they used under president bush to give -- lend $85 billion to a.i.g. we rescinded that. i don't think mr. bernanke, a bush appointee, was doing the wrong thing necessarily. but we took back that power. so this is probably a show because on the two serious efforts to curtail the fed's powers, my republican colleagues aren't there. but secondly, and as i said, i'm consistent, i don't think we should do any of these things. i think what we did with regard to openness makes sense. i'm not pretending to be tough when i'm not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. frank: but what it will do is destabilize. we have worries about expectations. there is a fear that we will be too inflationary or that we won't grow enough.

people on wall street are not as sophisticated as some people think. they're not even sophisticated about their own business, as we know. they will read this and take it more seriously than the members here do. and it will destabilize some of the financial system. they will see it as political interference, not with the contracting procedures, not with the budget, not with how many cards they have, but with how they decide on interest rates. and the perception that the congress is going to politicize the way in which interest rates are set will in itself have a destabilizing effect. and as i said, nobody here thinks this is ever going to become law. but there is this fear on the part of others who don't know that that will translate into precisely the kind of uncertainty, precisely the kind of unsettling on investment that my republican colleagues pretend to fear and it will also send them the message, stop worrying about unemployment.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: as i introduce my good friend and leader on this issue, mr. chaffetz, i might note that when the word republican and democrat are used in this hall, hopefully when there's 45 democratic members on this bill as co-sponsors, we'd recognize this is a bipartisan bill. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. and i thank the chairman. i also want to appreciate and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless pursuit of this openness and transparency. without his leadership we wouldn't be at this point today. and i applaud him and thank him for that. some would say that the fed is already audited but there are some key points where it is not. these include transactions with foreign central banks, discussion and actions on monetary policy, and transactions made under the direction of the federal open market committee. if we're truly about openness and transparency in this nation, which dishes -- distinguishes above and beyond so many others,

we deserve and need to know this information. we need also understand the imperative that is before us because the freshman reserve balance sheet has exploded in recent years. since 2008 it has literally tripled. gone from $908 billion on its balance sheet to over $2.8 trillion. nearly a 33% annualized increase since january of 2008. the federal reserve ownership of treasuries has also increased substantially in recent years. having more than doubled from january of 2008 to january of 2012. where it went from $741 billion to $1.66 trillion. let's understand also that in fiscal year 2011 the federal reserve purchased 76% of new treasuries. certainly this distribute american people and this congress deserves more openness, transparency and at the very least an audit. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation and again congratulate dr. paul on continued hope for his pursuit

of this issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield mrs. maloney two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: this is an absolute terrible idea. although i am in total agreement with mr. paul that transparency is a virtue, i also believe that the federal reserve must be free of any political influence. and i'm afraid that this bill opens the door for precisely that to happen. and i don't believe that there's any one -- anyone in this chamber that thinks that what the process needs is more politics. make no mistake, i agrie degree that maximum transparency is necessary and desirable and that is precisely why we included numerous transparency requirements in the financial reform bill as well as numerous audit requirements. we authorized the g.a.o. to audit the fed's emergency lending facility. we authorized the g.a.o. to ought audit any special facility created within the fed. and we required the fed to issue an assessment two years after

institutions were granted access to the fed's discount window. we crafted those measures and more in a way that ensures transparency, but still preserves the independence of the federal reserve in its decision making process, in the critical area of monetary policy. but this bill, as it now stands, would provide information without a proper context. and that could have unintended consequences and have totally unwarranted effects on consumer confidence in our financial institutions. if the individual numbers of the open markets committee know that each one of their decisions are subject to potential political pressure, it would significantly alter that decision making process. an open door to the federal open markets committee would invite political pressures and having decisions that are driven by politician and polling data is not -- politics and polling data is not the path to sound monetary policy.

decisions about monetary policy should never be based on the raw political needs of the moment but instead should always be based strictly on objective economic contributions and guided by the twin mandates of full employment. the unintended consequences of this bill would be to open the federal reserve to political influence and that would have a negative impact on the fed's independence and its ability to produce sound economic policy. i urge a strong bipartisan no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the constitution grants us the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and we've delegated this to the fed. unfortunately we've ta tied our hands behind our back with respect to seeing what they're doing and it's our duty to conduct oversight. a moment ago mr. frank said the

audit was just fist pounding and chest pounding. i disagree. it's the first step, it's us doing our homework to determine what needs to be done to reform the fed. chairman bernanke said this bill would be a nightmare scenario of political meddling in monetary affairs. i disagree. i think the current situation is a nightmare scenario in unaccountable government. as justice bran dies said, sunshine is always the best disinfectant. as a member of the oversight and government reform committee, we demand transparency from agencies like the g.s.a., the t.s.a., and other fed agencies. i join my friend and neighbor in congress, dr. paul, in demanding for the american people that sunshine be shined into the fed and this audit be conducted. i urge my colleagues to support this bill because the american people have a right to know. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman from massachusetts, one minute, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: to illustrate the

misconceptions about this bill, let's refer to what the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, had to say. he said 76% of the purchases of this and that -- well, if this was so nontransparent, i don't know how he knows that. he doesn't have a subpoena. but the fact is, yes, he knows that, because of the transparency we built in. but the more important, the details, the specifics of every one of those transactions is already public. this isn't about those transactions and with about whom were done and under what time period. it's about the motives of the people setting monetary policy. let me address the constitution. yes, it is true that the constitution gives us the power to do this. the constitution gives us a lot of power. it gives us power to declare war on canada. it declares -- gives us the power to do a lot of things. wise people pick and choose which powers they use, but this is not about getting more information about their transactions or that is out there. this is an effort to give politicses, a wonderful group

of people of which i am one, more direct involvement on the setting of interest rates than is good for the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to recognize for one minute the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. amash: i want to thank chairman issa and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless work on this issue for many decades. mr. speaker, what is the federal reserve? i think even many members of this body couldn't answer that question, and yet congress has delegated its constitutional authority to this committee of bankers and presidential appointees. congress has given so much power while knowing so little. the central bank, we trust the federal reserve for managing inflation. that means the fed can change the value of americans' life savings, their mortgages. lately the fed has taken on the

role of, quote, lender of last resort. it has promised billions of dollars to the country's largest financial institutions. when investors wouldn't buy mortgages, the fed did. when creditors became worry of congress' spending bin g, the fed stepped in. -- binge, the fed stepped it. the government's accountants understandably were outraged saying they couldn't, quote, satisfactorily audit the federal reserve system without the authority of examining the fed's largest assets. congress should be weary of all types of central planning. we should be especially vigilant against unaccountable groups that profoundly affect americans' lives and liberty. pass this bill and let's audit the fed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mudd. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman, and let me say, first, that this bill is not about sunshine. it's not about transparency.

it is about dissatisfaction that some individuals have with the man indicate that congress has given -- mandate that congress has given to the federal reserve. the gentleman who just spoke is absolutely right. they're supposed to deal with inflation. that's what we told them to do in their mandate. they're supposed to deal with unemployment. that's what we told them to do in the mandate we gave them. and some people over there are dissatisfied with the fact that they don't want them to deal with unemployment. they don't want them to try to adjust and make changes that will be beneficial to our economy. and if they don't want that, they ought to just introduce a bill that repeals the mandate that we gave to them. don't come and say we're

talking about sunshine and transparency. every time i turn on the television now i hear the federal reserve, chairman bernanke, and members of the federal reserve talking about how the economy is going. that is not lack of sunshine and lack of information. we -- i thought we had dealt with this when i was the ranking member of the subcommittee and mr. paul was the chairman -- or i was the chairman and he was the ranking member. mr. paul's problem is he doesn't like the federal reserve. he's in favor of doing away with the federal reserve. and if -- and that's an honest position, but don't come in and try to cloak it in the guise of this agency is not transparent or it lacks sunshine. if you don't like the mandate

that they have, then have the guts to stand up and introduce a bill that says we're doing away with the federal reserve and -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. watt: if you think we're in trouble now, you get the politics and the congress involved in transactions with foreign governments and decisions about how we get ourselves out of this unemployment situation. if we have some answers about how to get out of unemployment, i would assume we would come forward with them and nobody on this floor, this congress has done nothing to take out the ploun -- unemployment bill, so i'm glad we have the federal reserve over there at least trying to figuring out how to make some adjustments in our economy that will deal with unemployment. and the last thing i want is

for this congress to be second guessing or an auditor that is not elected by anybody to be second guessing the decisions of the people who are on the federal reserve. an auditor might be a good accountant. he can count, but i want somebody on the federal reserve and hopefully it would be nice to have some people in congress who can make some decisions about how to deal with unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, the rules of the house prohibits going after someone's motivation and i'm very concerned that a bill that in a substantially similar form was placed into dodd-frank by then chairman barney frank is now being characterized as somehow ill-intended and mischievous activity by the proponents. i would trust that's not the

intent of the speakers on behalf of that side of the aisle about this bipartisan bill that is virtually identical to the language that barney frank put into dodd-frank. i'd yield. mr. watt: i just want to be clear that mr. frank and i voted against the bill that you are talking about. so don't try to make it sound like me and mr. frank's bill. we voted against the bill. this is ron paul's bill, and we thought it was a terrible idea then and we -- mr. issa: reclaiming my time. mr. watt: thinks it's terrible now. mr. issa: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from texas. mr. paul: did you vote against dodd-frank? because it was in dodd-frank. it wasn't a separate bill. maybe on a separate vote you might have but it was in dodd-frank. mr. issa: i now recognize the gentleman from montana for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. rehberg: tomorrow the house

of representatives will vote to pull back the secretive curtain of the federal reserve. the american people have a right to know. it's an important step in openness in government transparency that's long overdue. just a few years ago the senate rejected an effort to add the strong audit language to the dodd-frank bill, but times are changing. our economy struggles and job creation lags. it's more important than ever to look under the hood of the federal reserve. we need to find out exactly what they are doing and why. that way we can determine if the fed is actually hurting our economy and discouraging job growth. in a drauks, no government body -- democracy, in government body should be allowed to hide behind a curtain of secrecy. that's why i stand behind this legislation. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the chair will observe a moment

of silent. will all present please rise in onans of a moment of silence. -- in observance of a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, debate continues on h.r. 459. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from massachusetts 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i'm glad that the committee on government oversight is not the one that started. in fact, there was a motion to include language like this offered to the financial reform bill. i voted no, as did mr. watt.

it wasn't included in the bill. it's true i voted for the bill. of course, the gentleman from texas voted against the bill. if you vote for the whole bill as taken on how you feel he was against it. when it went to conference it was not in the senate bill which was the text of the conference so we it did not come up and -- so it did not come up and no republican conferee offered it as an amendment. that is in the conference that language which i and the gentleman from north carolina voted against was not offered by any member of the conference, democrat or republican. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: history records that democrats broadly voted for it when it was voted out of this body. nothing more needs to be said. with that i recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman from california for the time, and i want to commend the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for his excellent work on

this issue. recently i had a constituent say to me in a town hall meeting they thought it was time for congress to start putting some mandates on the federal government. they're tired of government mandates on them. why don't we mandate, why don't we hold them accountable? this is a piece of legislation that does exactly that. it requires the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and of the federal reserve bank by the comptroller general before the end of the year. that is significant. a timeline to do a job, to be held accountable to the people of this great nation for how they spend their time, their money, the decisions they make that affect us. it is imperative that we get this economy back on track. the actions that we will vote on today are part of that.

having a federal reserve that is accountable, accountable to our constituents, accountable to the people of this nation. i commend the gentleman for a move toward transparency and accountability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 459 which passed out of the oversight committee without even a single hearing and without testimony from any federal reserve officials. let me be clear, the government accountability office has had the authority to audit the federal reserve's books for three decades. in 2010, the dodd-frank act expanded the types of audits g.a.o. conducts of the federal reserve as well as the data the fed must disclose to the dub.

dodd-frank required g.a.o. to audit the emergency financial assistance provided during the financial crisis. the act also opens discount window operations and open market operations to audit so g.a.o. can assess the operational integrity, collateral policies, fairness, use of third-party contractors. and dodd-frank requires the federal reserve to release information regarding borrowers and counterparties participating in discount lending programs and open market operations. mr. speaker, as a conferee who helped craft the final dodd-frank legislation, i supported all of these provisions. i believe other areas of the federal reserve's operations are also right for audit. during the committee's consideration of this legislation, i offered an amendment that would require g.a.o. to perform an audit of the independent foreclosure re views. 14 mortgage servicers have been

required to establish a process under which borrowers can request an independent review of their loan histories. but at the end of may, only 200,000 out of 4.4 million borrowers have requested an independent review of their foreclosure cases. we need to understand whether the design of the program is limited to a number of borrowers who sought reviews of their cases. further, it is unclear how the types and amounts of remediation are being determined. this is precisely the type of issue that should be reviewed by the g.a.o. the public has the right and the congress has a responsibility to know and understand the transactions and enforcement transactions undertake bin the nation's central bank. however when congress established the fed in 1913 it understood that independence from political interference was critical to the bank's ability to fulfill its monetary policy responsibilities. the dodd-frank act was carefully crafted to expand transparency

while preserving the protections that ensured the independence of the federal reserve's internal deliberations on monetary policy matters. the board of governors of the federal reserve must be able to pursue the policies it considers most response to have our nation's current economic conditions and most likely to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. we should not allow g.a.o. examinations to be the backdoor through which politics intrudes on monetary policy. which is what this legislation will allow. opening the federal reserve's internal policy deliberations to g.a.o. review would influence how such deliberations are conducted and potentially the policies that are chosen best -- thus degrading the fed's independence. last week chairman of the federal reserve, mr. bernanke, described the potential impact of this bill to the financial services committee and said, and i quote, the nightmare scenario i have is one in which some

future fed chairman would decide to raise the federal funds rate by 25 basis points and somebody would say, i don't like that decision, i want the g.a.o. to go in and get all the resorts -- records, get all the transcripts, get all the preparetory materials and give us an independent opinion whether or not that was the right decision. i share chairman bernanke's concern. for that reason during the markup of this legislation in the oversight committee, i offered an amendment that would have retained the protections for the board of governors in term of monetary policy deliberations to ensure that the audit required by this legislation did not intrude on the federal reserve's independence. i continue to believe this provision is needed to ensure this bill does not inhibit the ability of the federal reserve to implement monetary policies to strengthen our nation's economy as it has done repeatedly throughout the recent financial cry sills.

the speaker pro tempore: -- crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve his time? mr. cummings: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 91 fourts minutes remain -- -- 9 1/4 minute remaining. mr. issa: thank you. i now yield to the gentlelady from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank dr. paul for his leadership on this very important issue. mr. speaker, the federal reserve lent out $16 trillion during the fiscal crisis. that's larger than the entire u.s. economy or worse our federal debt. trillions of taxpayer dollars and we have very little understanding of where it went. congress holds the purse. but we have no oversight over how the fed manages the funds. this is why i've co-sponsored a bipartisan effort to audit the fed in full. it's our responsibility. current monetary policy audits of the fed are insufficient.

most fed operations consist of transactions with foreign central banks and yet they are exempt from review. when corruption is suspected, a common refrain is, follow the money. with the historic sovereign debt crisis brewing in europe, we must look closely at our own balance sheet. we must follow the money. as a c.p.a. i know we need more transparency in washington. it should start with the federal reserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to mr. kucinich one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article about the fed's policy model sacrifices its maximum employment mandate and targets 5% to 6% unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article from bloomberg news that talks about how secret fed loans gave banks

billions that were undisclosed to congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: this is all about disclosure and accountability. you know, the fed's not some kind of hocus pocus black box operation. the fed essentially supplants the constitutional mandate in article 1, section 8, that belongs to the congress of the united states. let's look at some recent history here. 2008, subprime meltdown, collateralized debt obligation, go back for mortgage-backed securities. people losing their homes. the fed looked the other way. and we're saying, oh, don't go into the fed, it would be political. yes, it's political. we have unemployment because of politics. we have people losing their homes because of politics. we have banks getting uncalculated amounts of money from the federal reserve and we don't even know about it. meanwhile people can't get a loan to keep their home or keep their business. audit the fed, you bet we should audit the fed. it's time that congress stood

for its constitutional role. article 1, section 8, power to create money. it's time we stood up for america's 99%. it's time that we stood up to the federal reserve that right now acts like it's some kind of high exalted priesthood, unaccountable in a democracy. let's change that by voting for the paul bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time i would yield one minute to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for one minute. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, before the financial crisis the fed's lending to the financial system was minimal and monetary policy was limited. but since 2008 they've tripled their balance sheet and transacted nearly $16 trillion in loans. clearly congress has delegated monetary policy to the fed and i for one am not advocating that we abolish the fed. but congress retains oversight responsibility and congress should insist on an accurate

accounting of the fed so members of congress can better understand monetary policy. our colleague ron paul was instrumental in getting an audit of the fed's emergency activities during the financial crisis. but restrictions remain in place on examining monetary policy actions such as quantitative easing and assisting failing banks in europe. when the fed's cumulative lending hits the size and scope to be greater than the entire g.d.p. of the united states, it's past time for congress to insist on transparency. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from maryland continue to reserve? mr. cummings: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it appears as though we agree on

certain things. we agree that some transparency is required. we certainly agree on a bipartisan basis that what the g.a.o. did under dodd-frank at a minimum was a good thing. i think there's no question, my colleague who was here earlier, mr. frank, certainly would agree to the numbers. the expansion of the fed in that period that mrs. lummis talked about in 2008 to now. i think we would all agree the federal reserve is the people's bank. it is broadly owned by 316 or 320 million americans. i served on the board of a public company, one that i founded. i understand that if you have more than 500 stockholders, you have an obligation to considerable disclosure. although the fed is audited to see whether basically some numbers are correct or not on a limited basis, the truth is the federal reserve is not open and

transparent, not even years after they make decisions. i think the american people have a piercing question right now, one that is not the question that dr. paul was asking when he first wanted to audit the fed. the question is, will we be like greece? will we be like germany? will we be like the trauma that's sweeping over the european union? do we in fact know the true numbers? do we know the extent of the leverage and the policies and the accuracy and the knowledge of the federal reserve? i think calmly we have to ask that question. do we know what we need to know or are we willing to not know in hopes that we won't be political because we don't know? i've been in congress for 12 full years at the end of this term. and i've learned one thing. congress has a tendency to do two things well. nothing at all and overreact.

i trust today will be a day in which we're in between. i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: we would do something so that we would know more a year from now than we know today. we would not overreact, we would not want to stifle what the fed has done historically without an awful lot more study. changes to an entity like the central bank should be done thoughtfully and over time. my friend, dr. paul, would like to do more than this bill does. but this minimal effort offered on a bipartisan basis is offered today because we believe the american people have a right to know, an interest to know and a need to know. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4 --

mr. clay: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 45. it has the comptroller general conduct an audit of the federal reserve. since 1982 the g.a.o. has had authority to audit the federal reserve board and banks subject to exception for monetary policy related decisions and activities. in 2009 congress provided authority for the g.a.o. to audit actions by the fed under section 1303 of the federal reserve act, to lend to any single and specific partnership or corporation notwithstanding the generally applicable monetary policy related exceptions. in 2010 the dodd-frank wall street reform act added new audit authorities. in addition g.a.o. has conducted a number of other reviews of federal reserve activitys but we

need a full audit and i urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, could i inquire how much time is available? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has all of his time -- all of his time has expired. mr. issa: with that i'll close. mr. speaker, i won't use all of our time. slightly different opinion than the ranking members. i believe regular order has been followed on this bill and followed and then some. this is something that dr. paul has worked on on a bipartisan basis with republican presidents and democratic presidents, with republican congresses and democratic congresses. the support for this, as you saw here today, goes to republicans and democrats, progressives, conservatives, blue dogs.

the american people want to know , i don't believe the american people are afraid to know. of course the american people would not be comfortable with interference with the fed, with micromanaging policy decisions, with tearing down the institution. but in fact i think that the 9/11 of the financial market, if you will, the meltdown in 2008 and 2009, $1 trillion nearly in tarp money and countless trillions in expansion of the balance sheet, have taught us one thing. what we don't know can hurt us. now before 9/11 of the financial market, before the meltdown, before the lamen brothers and bear stearns evaporated, we would have thought, well, there's some very smart people on wall street and we'd have been right. but smart people can be wrong. we put very good people on the federal reserve board. we choose very good chairmen.

chairman bernanke was a choice of republicans and democrats alike. but ultimately looking over the shoulder by congress, by my committee, by the financial services committee just to ask the question, are those numbers undeniable truths brought down on tabulates or are they in fact open to second guessing after the fact? questioning of whether or not a model works, or whether there is just a small but meaningful opportunity for tenses of trillions of dollars to fall on the backs of the american people if they got it wrong. that's the question the american people asked. and after 2008 it's a question congress must act -- ask. when chairman franks voted for -- frank voted for ron paul's bill, perhaps he didn't want it but he voted for it as did countless democrats. ultimately it was reduced but not eliminated in conference.

there was some recognition there needed to be audit. today what we're doing is asking to send to the senate a piece of legislation that more purely and clearly says, i believe the american people have a right to know. perhaps the senate will take up a slightly different version. perhaps it will be truly a one-time audit. perhapses it will be limited. but the american people need to hold us in the house and our counterparts in the senate responsible that we do know what we need to know and that we will never again say we rely on other people to be so smart that we shouldn't look over their shoulder. that's not the america that i grew up in. it's not the clear and transparent america the american people are asking for and with that i urge passage of this bipartisan bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 459 as amended. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. cummings: that is correct. 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, and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4157. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call the bill as amended? mr. walberg: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4157, a bill to prohibit the secretary of labor from finalizing a proposed rule under the fair labor standards act of 1938 relating to child labor. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the

gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 4157. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i want to thank thank my colleague from iowa, congressman tom latham, for introducing this very important legislation. representative latham is a longtime advocate for farmers and agri business and his leadership in congress is greatly appreciated. according to a report, a new site for my home state of michigan, parts of the country are experiencing the worst drought in more than 20 years. jim, a fifth generation farmer from liberty township, said this, it's going to be one of the years that separate those

that are positioned well financially and those that are not. unpredictability in the weather and harvest are not new challenges for american farmers. quite the contrary. it's a way of life. farmers work each day under difficult circumstances, growing the food and resources necessary to power this nation and this world. and often the presence of a son or daughter working with their parents is important to a farm's long-term success. federal labor policies recognize the support youth provide to family farms by exempting farmer workers between 14 and 16 years of age from restrictions on agriculture activities. for decades this exemption has applied to youth working on a farm owned or operated by the parent or an individual's standing in place of their parent. with farmers facing a tough year with high temperatures and low rainfall, we should

continue to support the ability for youth to experience safe employment in american farming. that's why many were shocked when the obama administration announced new rules that would make it difficult for young people to work on family farms. last september the department of labor proposed regulatory changes that would negatively affect youth employment in agriculture. such as narrowing the presental restriction, restricting the rules of farm ownership and prohibiting the use of certain equipment central to a farm's operation. even for young people who have received safety training through the federal services extension program, the labor department even tried to prevent youth from working with nontoxic pesticides available at the local hardware store. these proposed regulatory shifts fail to reflect the changes in farming that have occurred in recent years. we all want to keep young people safe from harm, especially when they work in an

inherently dangerous environment. however, the administration's proposal would deny youth an opportunity to gain hands on experience that is often crucial to a farm's survival. throughout our history, farms have been handed down from one generation to the next through the knowledge of future farmer gained working alongside his or her parents. public policy should promote this great american tradition, not dismantle it. mr. speaker, across the country many farmers are struggling. while i recognize the department has withdrawn its proposal for now, we owe it to these hardworking men and women to remove as much uncertainty as we can, especially uncertainty caused by flawed government policies. i'm proud to support the preserving america's family farms act and urge my colleagues to vote yes. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, last september the department of labor published a proposed rule on children employed in agriculture. i saw it as an important regulation that will protect young people working in one of the top three most hazardous industries in the nation, agriculture. but in may, the department withdrew the rule. i want to say this again. in may of this year, the department withdrew the rule. that wasn't enough apparently for the republican majority. today they've decided to waste precious legislative time on a bill that tells the department of labor not to issue this regulation. again, a regulation the department already withdrew.

today's debate gives new meaning to the idea of government waste. not only did the department of labor withdraw this rule, the administration has said it will not reissue the rule. i was disappointed that the department chose not to pursue the rule in the first place because the rule sought to implement specific recommendations made by the national institute of occupational safety and health, osha, and increased parody between the agriculture and nonagriculture child labor provisions. agriculture is dangerous, mr. speaker. children working on farms, like their adult counterparts, work with or around toxic pesticides. they carry very heavy materials and they use dangerous equipment. the fatality rate for child farm workers is four times higher than the children in other industries.

there are an estimated 400,000 children working on farms that are not owned by family members. and those children deserve health and safety protections. that is all this rule would have required. children under 16 should not be permitted or required to work with hazardous pesticides or dangerous equipment, period. but let's be clear. nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parent's farm in the first place. it's been a -- i've been a steadfast supporter of family farms throughout my 20 years in congress. we have many family farms in california's sixth congressional district. they are the important economic engine and a part of the fabric of our beautiful diversed community. my intent here, mr. speaker, is simply to protect children who are in danger of being

exploited and injured. the withdrawal of this rule was disappointing. today's debate, however, is a disgrace. there are nearly 24 million americans unemployed or underemployed. instead of addressing the real issues that affect them, we are debating legislation that does nothing that hasn't already been done. it already prevents a rule that has been prevented by powerful special interests and talk about a waste of taxpayer money. with the republican majority taking floor time with meaningless legislation like this, it's no wonder congress has an approval rating in the low teens. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, the sponsor of the bill, mr. latham.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding, and, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to stand today in support of h.r. 4157, preserving america's family farms act. this is a very bipartisan bill that i think really gets to what we're concerned about in agriculture today. any more these days it seems like army of federal bureaucrats are drawing up new regulations often with little or no consideration or understanding of the very industries that they're trying to regulate. you know, while some regulations do serve a legitimate purpose, others do little more than create uncertainty and additional costs for hardworking taxpayers, farmers and small business owners. i believe we want to put america back to -- in business, back to work. one of the first things we must do is crack down on

overregulation. i've introduced the proposal called the regulatory accountability and economic freedom act that would take a number of steps to reverse our government's direction in overregulation. unfortunately, we're standing here today to fight one of those misguided regulation attempts. last september the department of labor proposed rules that would have dramatically limited the ability of america's youth to contribute to work on their farm -- family's farm and it would have eliminated educational opportunities for youth in rural america. as a result, i introduced h.r. 4157 as a solution to block the d.o.l.'s overly burdensome regulations. we can't allow federal bureaucrats, many of them have never step foot on a farm to tell iowa farm families to you they can run their operations. as a person who grew up on a

family farm and later became a farmer myself, i can attest to the valuable skills that are developed through days of bailing hay and showing cattle at the county fair. i, like so many thousands of youth across this country today, utilize my own farm experience to learn the often difficult lessons of hard work, character development, problem solving skills and leadership. life on the farm is never easy, but the valuable lessons learned while producing america's food, feed, fiber make for a rewarding way of life. i think it goes without safety the concern to our youth is of the utmost importance to our farmers and ranchers. the regulations imposed by the d.o.l. would have destroyed opportunities for youth across the agricultural economy. this bill will ensure the department cannot reissue a

proposed rule substantial in nature through aspergs that it released last year. our youth deserve an opportunity to learn and grow through onfarm experience and my legislation will make sure that remains available and i urge support for preserving america's family farms act. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the american family farm. wisconsin farms are the bedrock of our society. they are the cornerstone of the wisconsin economy. you look at a family farm and

if we don't have the whole family in the youth working on the family farm, oftentimes they can't be successful in this very challenging economy. you look at the life skills and the work ethic that our youth get from the family farm, it is amazing. they learn how to milk cows, how to plant, how to harvest, how to balance the books, manage risk. they learn how markets work on the family farm. here again is a great example of big government getting bigger and more intrusive, telling american families whether or not their kids can engage in the family farm and the family business. we talk to employers in wisconsin they tell me some of their best workers are workers who grew up on a family farm. and if you -- thank goodness that we didn't have my friends across the aisle who are going to complain about the family farms, the greatest generation was raised on the family farm. with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california ms. woolsey: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. boswell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. boswell: thank you for yielding the time. i appreciate this opportunity. i rise in support of h.r. 4157 to preserve america's family farms or should i say, farm family traditions. passing this legislation today will codify our successful effort to prevent the department of labor from undercutting the structure of our nation's family farms. for generations, the contributions for young people have led to family success and bright futures on household farms. however, late last year, our family farmers faced a sweeping regulation that would have prevented children and grandchildren from participating in the very important lessons and traditions that have stabilized not only our family bus also our economy.

the shortsighted ruling proposed by the department of labor would have affected a wide variety of subsectors within agriculture, work with livestock and grain production, commodity transportation, youth agriculture and a number of other sectors that train and educate our youth in family farm settings with hands on experience. not only was there little to no data available to back the proposal being made, it would as stated by future farmers of america, our youth, it would limit if not eliminate opportunities to effectively teach students to be safe when working in agriculture. i'm proud many of us joined in a bipartisan effort to tell the secretary of labor through multiple letters that this ruling is wrong. fortunately, the department did rescind this ruling, as was stated a little while ago, so the youth in our districts could continue to learn important lessons taking place

in the most successful sector of our economy. i support h.r. 4157 because it will codify this effort. this bill will clarify the intention of congress with respect to youth education on farms and it will prevent the department of labor from implementing or enforcing this very specific proposal. in codifying our intention and passing this bill, we ensure that all farmers have access to education and retain the family's tradition, two things that are critical in our changing society. i often think back to when i returned home from the army to farm and realized that changes had taken place in farm technology while i was atwhasme farmers now require even more skills and adjust to faster changes than ever before. young people today and even some of us who aren't so young are maintaining high tech g.p.s. programs, aerial mapping, biotechnology to create greater efficiencies in farming, increase output and reduce the cost of food in our local grocery store.

these young farmers are taking their experience on the farm to study and create the software to improve farming, acquire the financial skills it takes to run a farm and gaining the entrepreneurial spirit to be part of one of america's greatest economic sectors. these youth, backed by their experience on the farm are not just farmers. their economists, engineers, and international lay asons. may i have another 30 seconds? ms. woolsey: i yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. boswell: we must make sure that these young people have access to the education they deserve and associations many of us hold dear and treasure our whole life. i call my colleagues to supporting this legislation today, i also call on taos demand that the farm bill, passed with 35 out of thing a

-- with 35 ayes out of the agriculture committee be brought to the floor. it affects the ability to hire and purchase. american farmers create jobs and make investments to keep jobs. the difference between a farmer and businessman, the farmer's profits are more subject to the whims of the market. let's take care of our farmers and future farmers. we must pass a five-year farm bill. let's pass this bill today and get on to the farm bill next. thank you very much and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. >> i am glad to yield to my farmer friend from kansas, mr. huelskamp, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: i rise in support of family farms of kansas and all of america.

the proposed department of labor rule to prevent children working on family farms is a contradiction to our ag tradition. the family farm is one of the best place farce child to learn and develop a strong work ethic. i know this is a -- this as a farmer -- former farm kid myself, now a fifth generation farler who hope mischildren will be the sixth. with our age in crisis, -- with a crisis aging -- facing farming, the last thing we need is for bureaucrats who know nothing about farms, to regulate it into oblivions. moms and dads should be trusted to raise their kids as they see fit. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the blaps of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from

california. ms. woolsey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i yield at this time to a former rancher kid and colleague of mine two minutes to the gentlelady from south dakota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. noem: it is often through debate that we learn things about each other. we may learn facts about a bill we're discussing or experiences we've all had. a lot of people probably don't know about me, i care deeply about this subject because i lost my dad in an accident on a farm. it was devastating to our family. but i thank god every single day for every moment that i had working beside him growing up on the family farm. it was there that i learned how to pick out good land and look for good soil. it's where i learned how to identify a cow that would be a good mother or good milker. and it was there that i learned

to look at a problem and not just talk about it but to actually solve it and fix it. so my children are having that same experience with me. we get the chance when i go home from here to work together, to work with our livestock and animals, we love it. i would be devastate if a washington bureaucrat came and told me no longer could i teach my children the way of life passed on to me by my father because of a decision they decided they would be safer, that that was no longer alousmed that's why i stand here today in support of h.r. 4157, preserving america's family farms act. the department of labor talked about putting this regulation in place. they withdrew it because of pressure from american people who recognized that it was not the way to go about regulating family farms and this act is just going to ensure that they can no longer take this action and put it into place. with that, i proudly stand here and protect our family farms and our way of life by

endorsing this act. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. boren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4157. the preserving america's family farms act. i commend my friend, mr. latham, and his entire staff, for all their hard work on ensuring that the department of labor's proposed rules that restriction family farm tradition be reversed. in december, the u.s. department of labor proposed updated regulations on labor practices for minors in agricultural operations including a rule that would have prevented children under the age of 16 from performing certain duties on farms. historically, family farms have been exempted from such rules. but the new proposal could have been intrerpted broadly to

exclude operations that are owned by extended family members. in response to the proposed rule, congressman latham and i introduced h r. 4157. the bill protects family farm tradition by directing the secretary of labor to recognize and understand the unique circumstances of family farm youth and multigenerational family partnerships when drafting regulations now and in the future. in trill -- in april the administration announced that as a result of loud opposition, they would not finalize the proposed rule. although i'm pleased that they decided to abandon the flawed rule and listen to thousands of voices among our rural communities, passage of h.r. 4 57 will -- of 4157 will ensure that in the future the department of labor does not reissue this proposal or any other rule that would have a similar effect on our family farms. this legislation encourages the

administration to work collaboratively with stake holders such as farmers and ranchers to understand issues that affect their mustn'ts and our way of life. family farms have a long history of providing a valuable work ethic and leadership experience to future farmers. many of these young folks dedicate their entire lives to providing us with an abaun -- with an abundant and safe marketplace so we owe it to them to protect the foundation on which this american spirit of hard work is built. please join me and please join my friend, congressman latham, and over 93 bipartisan co-sponsors to pass this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the secret yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: a the president: of personal privilege, i applaud my colleague and friend from oklahoma for your comments. the concept of trust but verify is carried out here. we trust what has been said by

the department but we verify with the action we're taking today. it gives me privilege now to recognize a friend from tennessee, a colleague who cares about people and their safety, especially young people, as a medical doctor, and i relinquish to him two minutes of time, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. desjarlais. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. desjarlais: earlier this year, the department of labor issued a misguided rule that would ban children from working on family-owned farms. while i'm sure there were kids who were overjoyed by this news, i think it would be horribly unfair to deprive our youth of the same valuable work experience many of us were afforded. growing up in a rural community, i spent a lot of time doing work on farms and i'll be the first to admit it wasn't always fun but the value and appreciation for hard work it instilled in me shaped me as

a person. that's why i was proud to support the preserving america's family farms act. this will prevent the department of labor from issuing this rule or any similar rule preventing children from working on their parent's farm. if this proposal from the department of labor were inch. ed, not only would it rob our young farmers educational opportunities, it would erode part of our rural community's culture. it is part of the troubling pattern of government overreach we have seen from this administration. i thank the tennessee farm bureau for their efforts in speaking out against this misguided notion and ensuring that farming decisions are left to farmers, not bureaucrats in washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: i just want to repeat what i said in my opening remarks. nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farms. the proposed rule maintained

the parental exemption. but again, the -- and to remind everybody -- the department of labor withdrew their proposal. we are wasting time today. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minute of time to my friend from new york, richard hanna. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hanna: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4157, the preserving america's farm act. i am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation this rule, had it been enacted, would be one more sad example of how far our government is willing to go to protect us from ourselves. if there's anything america's family farms act would protect the -- the preserving america's family farms act would prohibit the department of labor from

issuing a rule to prohibit children from working on their family farms. like many children, i spent many summers working on my grandparents' modest dairy farm in new york. my grandfather -- by my grandfather's side i learned personal responsibility, accountability, gained character and a sense of accomplishment, as well as the pride and dignity that results from a day's work. my family farm would not have been economically viable if my younger cousins and i had not worked and assisting -- and assisted during harvest and milking. i'm concerned that the police chief in personal accountability and responsibility, as well as hard work, which is being instilled -- being instilled at a young age is being diminish the lessons learned on a family farm should be reinforced and encouraged more, not less. mr. speaker, i acknowledge farms are a dangerous place to work but as a man who has employed hundreds of people, those who

worked early and hard in their lives, regardless of where they worked, were my most eager and responsible employees. i could not have succeeded without those men and women and neither will this country. we should not restrict young people from working, character built early grows deeper and lasts a lifetime. let's pass this bill and protect our family farms and the great americans they produce. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. woolsey: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady refreshes -- reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute of time to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. ms. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 4157, preserving america's family

farm. this bill prohibits the secretary of labor from finalizing or enforcing the proposed rule that will fundamentally alter the way family farms have operated for decades and is another example of washington bureaucrats trying to tell farmers and ranchers how to operate their operations. if these rules are finalized in their exurnt form, children in rural -- in their current form, children in rural america will not have the opportunity to learn life skills and values that working on the farm provides. as i talk with farm families in missouri's fourth district, they are frustrated by this rule. their message is clear, plain and simple. big government should not tell hardworking americans how to raise their children and care for their land. i believe the government should ensure our basic liberties, not trample on them. parents care for more -- more for their children than government bureaucrats and should make the decisions for their children, not washington, d.c. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense

legislation. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: again, mr. speaker, nothing in the proposal -- proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm. and i yield back. no, i don't. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. point of personal privilege. a family farm and a family farm sometimes isn't the same. it's incorporated. for that reason we continue to offer this piece of legislation. it gives me privilege to introduce another great farmer from iowa, a colleague, the gentleman, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. for how long? how much time? mr. walberg: i yield one minute of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for

yielding to me. when i saw this rule it was appalling to me to think that this eament from the administration, the assault on the sanctity of the family and the family farm all at the same time. as we had a witness come before the small business committee, the assistant secretary of labor, under oath, i asked her, what was driving this rule? her answer was, it's driven by data. the highest level of injuries in youth labor are on the farm. and so we have to do something to interrupt this injury that's taking place on the farm. so i asked her, what is the second highest level of injury in farm -- or in youth labor? her answer was, i don't know. not data driven. it's driven by some misguided ideology. it's also been supported by the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, who their team has been working with the department of labor. and this has not been withdrawn by the administration, mr. speaker, for the sake of them understanding this is a misguided policy decision. it's been withdrawn because it's a misguided political initiative.

and so i'm glad that it's temporary withdrawn. i appreciate the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, for bringing this legislation, to prohibit this rule from being reto do -- reintroduced again. let's protect the tradition that made america great and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: i understand, mr. speaker, that we're ready to close. then i will yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: in closing, mr. speaker, once again, at a time when there are so many americans looking for work and so many middle class families struggling to make ends meet, congress has better things to do than to take up a redundant bill. it's wasteful, it's unnecessary and it prevents us from doing the real work that our constituents have sent us here to do. let's answer the important challenge facing the country. let's start creating jobs for

the american people. let's start now and let's stop wasting time on something that has already been satisfied. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate so much that we've had this time of debate. again, trust but verify. this is a verifying opportunity. as has been said, the proposed regulation was pulled because of political challenges. the american people generally understand common sense. and this wasn't common sense. when we see the cost of regulations in this country right now being $10,000 per employee, we add this to the impact on the farm family, those that have incorporated, in order to carry on their business, and ultimately carry on farming for generations, we see additional

problems. so we want to make sure that this debate carries through and ultimately we don't have to do it again. but the -- but that we preserve the right to farm, the tradition and the opportunity to train our young people to do something that's valuable long-term and full of impact. having said that, mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding once again and, mr. speaker, i will be submitting a letter here from 16 national farm groups in support of this legislation. i'd also like to respond. the gentlewoman talked about, well, families, parents can still let their children farm --ing aboved -- be involved in the farming operation. that statement to me just shows

the total misunderstanding and miscomprehension of what agriculture is today. yes, you have a family, mom and dad, but the highest percentage of all farms today are in partnership with their brothers, with their sisters, if their grandparents are still involved, if their parents are involved in that farming operation. this rule would have prohibited any child from working on the farm. and being part of a family operation. or any of the things that are so common today in partnerships, small business corporations, that these family farm operations are, would have totally prohibited our youth from getting the kind of education, of getting the knowledge, getting the experience that they can derive working with their parents on a family farm operation. mr. speaker, last saturday i had

the opportunity to travel to three county fairs, one in bedford, one in red oak, and one in boka, iowa. and it was brought back so many memories from my own youth, to go to those fairs and see young people showing livestock. either 4-h or f.f.a. and to experience the drn -- see the experience, the love they have for those animals, the love of the farm, of the agriculture they're developing in their youth. this is extraordinarily important. while some people may disease miss the importance of this, this bill -- dismiss the importance of this, this bill, it will prohibit, even in the proposal that was made, but also anything like it from happening and that's what's very, very important. to give those families out there the certainty, to give the 4-h, the f.f.a., the educational programs in agriculture today a chance to continue, to continue this great legacy of

agriculture, of family farm operations. that really is what this is all about. and, mr. speaker, i again ask for support of all the members for this bill. it is extremely important for family farms and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4157 as amended. those 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 and the bill is passed and without objection the title is amended. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which they can revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 6082. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

pursuant to house resolution 738 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6082. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 6082 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period under the outer continental shelf lands act president obama's proposed final outer couldn't neble shelf -- outer

continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, 21-17, with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas lease sales, to promote offshore energy development, job creation and increase domestic energy production, to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. under the shadow of the supreme court's ruling on obamacare, the obama administration on june 28 quietly announced the president's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012 to 2017. despite claims of being proud of their energy record, the obama administration deliberately

chose to announce their plan on the day when it would get buried in the obamacare news coverage. this shows that even this administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85% of america's offshore areas off limits to energy production. under section 18 of the outer continental shelf leasing act, would any president -- when any president proposes a new five-year offshore drilling plan, it must be submitted to congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can become final and take effect. that 60-day clock is now ticking. it's now congress' responsibility to take action, to reject president obama's no new drilling, no new jobs plan and replace it with a robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy resources. according to analysis conducted by the nonpartisan congressional research office, the president has proposed fewer leases in his

plan than any president since this process began. that goes back to president jimmy carter, so it's even worse than president carter. president obama's proposal doesn't open up one new area for leasing and energy production. it would set our nation's energy production back to the days before 2008, when two morer toia prohibited drilling of a vast majority of american offshore areas were in place. both moratorium were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of the american people over the cost of $4 per gallon gasoline. they demanded the federal government take action. president obama proposes to effectively reimpose that moratorium. from nearly the day he took the oath of office this president has put the brakes on new american energy production and job creation. in the first weeks of the administration, the interior

department took a nearly completely new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for six months. and then they tossed out that draft plan entirely and started over. it took them over 3 1/2 years to get a new proposed plan in place and along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease sales. for example, president obama canceled a virginia lease sale scheduled for 2011, last year. and now refuses to include virginia in his 20212-2017 plan. he is responsele for closing an entire new area of drills and cheating the commonwealth out of thousands of jobs and another industry. if president obama has his way, virginia will be left out in the cold until 2017 at the earliest. the bill being considered today, h.r. 6082, is entitled

the congressional replacement of president obama's energy restricting and job-limiting offshore oil drilling plan. in stark contrast to president obama's plan this represents a drill smart plan that includes 29 lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing america's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. what a novel idea. go to where the resources are. the bill would replace the lease sale scheduled in the president's proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under morer toa, such as the mid atlantic, the south pacific, and others. it does this while ensuring that necessary environmental reviews are conducted. it would generate $600 million in additional revenues and create tens of thousands of new

american jobs. tomorrow, there will be a direct up or down vote on the president's proposed plan when we consider under suspension h.r. 6168. there will also, obviously, be a direct up or down vote on this legislation. so members can decide if the president's plan meets the standards expected by the american people or if we should replace it with a real plan that creates jobs and grows our economy. the house has taken action to replace the president's proposed plan and i call on the senate to do the same. if the senate does nothing and lets the 60-day clock run out, that's an endorsement of the president's plan. it's an endorsement of the plan that reimposes the drilling morer toa, creates no new jobs and no new energy. i believe we can do better than this proposed plan and our nation deserves better. by passing this bill, we are standing up for american energy

and american jobs and moving our country forward. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, i would like to welcome everyone back to yet another episode of the g.o.p. wheel of giveaway game shows here. every week on the floor of the house of representatives the majority picks an industry to benefit from giveaways of our public lands. one month ago, the republican majority voted to turn over nearly all of our on-shore public lands to the oil and gas industry in just a few short years. two weeks ago, the majority voted to eviscerate proper

environmental review for massive gold and silver and uranium mines on public lands to benefit the mining industry. and here we are, on the house floor once again debating a republican bill from the natural resources committee intended to hand out even more industry giveaways. well, it gets hard to keep track of which industry is getting the g.o.p. giveaway each week, so let's consult our chart. the g.o.p. wheel of giveaways so that we can make sure that everyone at home can follow along to see whether it will be the oil, the gas, the mining or the timber industries that will be the big winner in the giveaway of our public lands this week. of course, we all know that it won't be the solar or the wind industries beb fitting from the -- industries benefiting from the republicans because in the

republican oil-above-all game, if you land on renewable energy you lose a turn. so which industry is getting the giveaway this week? we are back on the even more oil on the house floor today. even more oil giveaways. h.r. 6082 would place drill rigs right off our beaches in southern california. our beaches in maine, in new hampshire, in massachusetts, in rhode island, in connecticut, in new york, in new jersey. just put the drills right out there, right off the maryland coast. and by the way, there'll be millions of people, of course, out on those beaches saying, get those oil rigs off of the beaches. off of the places where people go and have a good time during the summer, where the fishing

industry is, and my amendment will say, by the way if you do find any oil or gas out there, at least let's keep the oil or gas here in the united states. let's not run the risk of despoiling the natural resources of our country, the beaches, the fishing areas, finding natural gas and shipping it to other countries. let's keep it here and the republicans are going to oppose keeping the natural gas that they would find off of these beaches in california and maine and massachusetts and new jersey and send it to other countries. this is truly the even more oil republican party. whatever exxonmobil wants, whatever shell wants, whatever b.p. wants, we'll do it. fetch we know millions of people will be protesting, right from the very beginning. and by the way, without passing one of the reforms from the

b.p. spill commission to make sure that the drill og curs in a safe fashion. they still, in two years, have yet to bring out one single safety reform that would implement safeguards to protect against the repetition of what happened in the gulf of mexico. so the natural gas that's found can go overseas, it would be done in a risky fashion because they refuse to learn the lessons of b.p. in the gulf of mexico and they included no new safety measures but, you know, that's what exxonmobil wants, that's what b.p. want, it's out here on the house floor to be voted upon, over the vigorous objections of this democrat and democrats all across the country. in this congress, the republican majority has reported 11 drilling bys -- drilling bills out of the natural resources committee. they have been combined and brought to the house floor,

this is now the sixth massive package of giveaways to big oil we have considered. two of those were largely similar to the legislation we are considering today to dramatically expand offshore drilling without putting any new safety measures in place. and all the previous drilling bills have suffered the same fate. they were all far too extreme to pass the senate and not a single one of them have been signed into law. well, let me let everyone in on a little secret. this bill is also not becoming law. like the bills before it, it can't pass the senate and the administration has already said that the president would veto this bill. but that reality hasn't stopped the republican house from passing giveaways to the oil and gas industry over and over again. the reason they keep passing them is the same reason that, when you go to a movie and see

previews of coming attractions. what they're saying here is, we're pass, republicans are pass, all this legislation for the oil companies to drill off our beaches, for all the big oil companies, and if, if, just somehow or other, mitt romney becomes president and the republicans take over the senate, this will become the lew of the nation. so they see this as a preview of coming atractions and they want the public to know that that will happen. and they want to run, this year, on this premise. and i think that's great. it's a very honest way of dealing with something that will horrify people who live all along the coastlines in these states that would run the risk of having damage done to their beaches. when you -- when you include all the bills that have been reported by all the committees altogether, this republican house has already cast 139 votes on the house floor, this congress, to benefit the oil

and gas industry. we are going to pass 90 hours of debate on the throor on oil and gas legislation this congress, just today. what a streak. when most people think of the great records of american history they think of joe dimaggio's, 56-game hitting streak or cal ripken's 2,062 hitting games or maybe wilt chamberlain scoring 100 points in a basketball game but when all is said and done, the record of this republican congress, voting to benefit big oil, might be just as untouchable a record with nearly 139 votes and nearly 90 hours of debates on these giveaways to the oil industry, on the house floor, this is a once-in-a-generation performance by this republican congress. it may stand as a record that can never be broken by any other congress in terms of the

number of giveaways to the oil and gas industry. whether it's vote 3g3 times to repeal the affordable care act or voting again and again for more and more drilling under the g.o.p., this isn't the house of representatives, it's the house of repetition president truman dubbed the 0th congress the do nothing congress. this is apatiently the do the same thing over and over and over again congress. the republican majority has already cast 139 votes to aid the oil and gas industry. how many votes have they cast to benefit the wind and the solar industry? ah. there's a good question. well the answer is, zero. 139 for oil and gas, zero for the wind and solar industry. is that all you really need to know about what is going on here? in congress? can you imagine the millenials out there listening to this debate saying zero for wind and

solar? zero for the future? zero for making our country more of the clean energy leader of the world? of reducing greenhouse gases? of creating jobs in those industries? zero for wind and solar. the wind tax breaks are ex-peering this year. do not expect that to come out on the house floor as a vote the republican says we must extend. but tax breaks for oil companies, extra drilling privileges off our beaches for the oil and gas companies, oh, yeah, plenty of votes for that. while we have been spending 90 hours debating legislation to help big oil, recently, the majority wouldn't even allow a debate on the floor on an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard for our -- for our nation because the renewable -- because the republican energy policy isn't all of the above, it is oil above all. and that's what we're going to

be debating for the rest of the day out here on the house floor. sad to say. for the future of the renewable energy future of our country. at this point, i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: before i yield to the gentleman from colorado, i yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to my good friend from massachusetts that in response to his answer on how many bill this is house has addressed on renewables, the gentleman said zero and that is incorrect. there has been multiple bills and parts of bills dealing with the process of putting wind and solar in place specifically on public lands. so i am very -- i want to correct the gentleman in that regard. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. chairman. mr. speaker.