irresponsible attempts to repeal the health care law. if they do, they will be escalating their brinksmanship to a new level and risking a government shutdown simply because they don't want to compromise. already, as you know, members of the majority are threatening to shut down the government if the affordable care act is not repealed. that does show kind of an act of desperation, doesn't it? it -- a dozen republican senators signed a letter vowing to vote against a continuing resolution we have to have because nobody got the work done that funds the affordable care act and more than 60 house republicans called on the majority's leadership to defund the affordable care act in any continuing resolution that comes before the house. . instead i want the majority to make a change here. my fellow kentuckian, hal rogers, who is the chairman of the appropriations committee, yesterday made it plain to everybody, this is all a hoax.

he talked about sequestration and the impossibility to bring a transportation bill that scarcely has enough money to maintain what roads we have. and it imploded on the floor -- imploded on the floor when nobody would vote for it. while we are on recess please think about this. think about what sequestration is doing in the united states. i hope you read former senator dorgan's article in "the new york times" talking about the devastation on the indian reservations because the money we owe them by treaty which would be lost to sequestration. the people who are doing health research at the national institutes of health where they tell me in the human genome project they are very close to finding a cure for cancer, but now they have to stop it. i can promise you you do not turn research off and on like a faucet. think of the people who can't get their treatment because of sequestration. think of all the people who live in this area and work for this government and keep this government working, many of

them, two members of the family on federal payroll, who have suffered as much in that family as a 40% pay cut. and the bills that are in here today. again, saying to the federal employees we don't val you -- value you for anything. they haven't had a raise for four years. what we are saying now if this bill passes today is they can be fired without cause and that their phones will be tapped by any citizen in the united states. i am concerned about what's here. we talk about too much regulation, and i want to close with something i mentioned last night at the rules committee because i realized most americans don't know it. let me talk about underregulation. n the food market chickens are inspected 100 at a time, 100 a minute, going through the conveyor belt. they are covered with barnyard

debris and feesies and whatever else -- feces and whatever else, and one person is inspenthing them as 100 go by. what's going to happen now they have decided the regulator will have to do 140 chickens a minute. and recently the new york -- "washington post" had a front page story that stunned me to the core. it said that a young food inspector working for the and nment lungs bled out hed because of the chemicals he inhauled from the inspection days. after the chicken goes through the conveyor belt it goes into a bath of cool water and clorox, then it's ready to be packaged and all plastic up and have it for dinner. is that overregulation? for heaven's sakes, give me more regulation than that. but i want to urge my colleagues today to vote no on this rule, the underlying

legislation, and quit this farce in the house of representatives. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to quickly respond if i may to a couple of points my good friend made. first i want to begin by agreeing with her, because quite frankly as i have stated publicly on many occasions i don't believe government shut down is a good idea, either. i think that's not a responsible, political tactic. while my good friend has been concerned that some people -- in my party have advocated that, i also expressed a similar concern that some advisors to the president have recommended that should we send a so-called continuing resolution that funded the government that did not repeal sequester? there's be -- i think been irresponsible discussion about shutting down the government which i agree is never a good idea. it's come from both sides of the aisle. in terms of her observations

about sequestration, as an appropriator shall, again we probably would find common ground. i would also like to see us get rid of sequestration, but do it by recontributing the cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the budget where i think they belong. we need to keep the savings, that's why the deficit is coming down, but there's certainly smarter and better ways to do that. if the president is willing to do that, i suspect he would find a willing negotiating partner on our side of the aisle. in fact, though, many of my friends advocate what is effectively a third tax increase this year. we had a tax increase with the so-called fiscal cliff when all the bush tax cuts ended. the president used that to raise taxes. we have a tax increase this year associated with his health care plan kicking in that's major. now my friends on the other side of the aisle want a third tax increase, and to keep the government open and operating. we think we can spend money better and smarter, and that we

ought to continue to reduce spending not increase the burdens on the american people. finally, i want to talk to my friend who discussed obamacare. she's absolutely right. we certainly would like to repeal it and we certainly have tried to make that point repeatedly. frankly her disagreement is not with us so much as it is with the american people. this is an extraordinaryly un-- -extraordinarily unpopular law. people would like to see it repealed. it's not a good idea. we are seeing signs of that as well. the president himself in the significant piece of legislation had to ask the business mandates be pushed back by a year. we'd like to help him in that and we'd like to do it for individuals as well, but that suggests this was certainly a bill not ready for prime time. former presidential candidate, very seldom quote, al dean an approval or cite him, we are in

agreement, not approval, but he had an interesting piece in the "wall street journal" this week on why the central cost control mechanism of obamacare, the independent payment advisory board, simply wouldn't work. that's not us. that's criticism from somebody that probably supports a national health care plan of some kind. finally, i think this does get overlooked in the debate, and i want to end my comments on a point of agreement because while we have voted repeatedly to repeal, there have actually been times we have on both sides of the aisle agreed and agreed with the president about changing this bill. in the last couple of years we actually passed seven pieces of legislation when we were in the majority, they obviously had to go through a democratic senate and the president's desk, that changed or modified obamacare. that saved about $62 billion. my friends after ramming that legislation through looked at the so-called 1040's that were going to be attached to every

$600 purchase and said you guys are right. that's a really bad idea. the president thought so, too. we got rid of it. we also got rid of the assisted living portion of it, the so-called class act that was financially unsustainable. why? secretary sebelius looked at it and said this isn't going to work. i'll bet you sooner or later we'll get a medical device tax elimination down here on this floor which people on both sides know it's nuts to be taxes people's wheelchairs and oxygen can because they are sick and use that to fund health care and i bet we could probably find common agreement on that. while we would like to repeal, we certainly are willing to work where we can find common areas and continue to try and improve a very flawed product. with that i'd like to yield my good friend and fellow rules committee member from florida, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. nugent: also thank my good

friend in the rules committee, member that i have the pleasure of serving with. today i rise in support of house res. 322 and underlying legislation, h.r. 367, the regulation from the executive need of security act. i want to thank my friend for bringing this forward as the rule. but this has been known as the reins act. it would bring much needed reform to a broken regulatory process. my good friend from new york, . slaughter, mentioned chickens. and she mentioned it last night. the issue, what she's talking about when you are talking about the number of chickens eing observed by the usda, this is the president, this is -- they wanted to increase the number. they wanted to go to a private system. it's a bad at idea. but maybe the reins act could actually help in that

particular instance because you could bring it back to this house to talk about it because, as a valued member of the rules committee, she brought up a good idea. somewhere along the line we lost sight of what congress' responsibility in the role of regulations is all about. through the years we delegated away responsibility. we gave it to un-elected bureaucrats to make decision that is have far ranging effect on the american people. i'm pretty sure that our founding fathers didn't envision us doing that. that bureaucrats are going to decide the fates of small businesses in industries, and that's what we let happened because it was easy. it's easier. all too often making regulations in d.c., we just aren't in touch with how that actually affects real americans, real jobs in this country. we hear from folks back home about how regulations passed in d.c. are preventing their

business from growing and expanding. the reins act would return us to a vision our founding fathers had for this institution and for this nation. it does so by ensuring that any major rule, that's a rule that has over $100 million in impact to our economy, receive approval from this body and from the senate before it actually goes in to the process of regulation. certainly regulations with an impact this large deserve to have our attention, our review, and ultimately our blessing by our vote. and frankly they deserve more than just a public comment period that regulatory agencies give the public. for that reason i urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. i'll just give you one antidote, mr. speaker. back home we have a cement kill in -- kiln that produces cement

for use all over the united states, has 200 people right there. i come from a county that has unemployment of 8.9%. what the e.p.a. is looking to do is put those businesses out of existence. when you talk to folks that actually run it, they said, rich, we can just go across the border into mexico where they don't have any restrictions on air pollution, and we can do it cheaper because we don't have to have the pollution controls. you know what? that air doesn't stop at the border. it comes back into the united states. when you force companies out, we have some of the strongest and most stringent e.p.a. requirements for air and water, when you force those companies to leave our country, take the bs with them, and we still breathe dirtier air than we would have. so there's got to be a common ground. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from florida yields back. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. to clerk: h.r. 1911, an act amend the higher education act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after july 1, 2013, to direct the secretary of education to convene the advisory committee on improving postsecondary education data, to conduct a study on improvements to postsecondary education transparency at the federal level, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. let me take just a second to say another case of unregulation was the fertilizer plant blowing up in west texas. they had not been inspected in over 20 years. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the ranking member of the rules committee, my friend, ms. slaughter, for

yielding. i want to say i have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from oklahoma. is say that this house not working. the american people are angry with all of us, 100% of us. the gentleman from florida just said surely we can find common ground. the gentleman talked about shutting down government being an unreasonable response, although many in his party promote that. the president's not promoting it. the president's against it. you know our side is against that. surely we can reach common round. yesterday we had eight bills on the floor on suspension. the public doesn't know

process, i understand that. they are not too interested in hearing about process, but suspensions make for short debates and no amendments, no ability to make changes in those bills. that's why they were all put on uspension. they were pulled because they didn't have the votes. i don't think they had the votes either, the majority. their did they do in pursuit of a transparent, let the house work its will pledge? that they made to the american public when they sought control , being in the majority? they've gone to the rules committee, one rule, five bills. how can you debate five different bills where the rules are correct? and what are those rules? closed. limited discussion. yesterday, an appropriations

bill on the floor. it was pulled. it was pulled as i predicted it would be. because the republican majority cannot get its act together. disagrees with itself is a deeply divided party. i was just on television and they played a clip of rush limbaugh before that, he said, we ought not to compromise because we don't have anything in common. with them. meaning democrats. my response was, oh, i think rush limbaugh is wrong. we're all americans. and we're all elected here by americans. to serve them and to serve their country. to serve our communities and our neighbors. and try to do things that make sense. americans elected all of us

from different places, different interests, i don't know how much time you have. mr. slaughter: i yield the gentleman another minute. would you like two? mr. hoyer: i would like two if i could. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i say this because the american people need to know what's happening. ey pulled the transportation housing bill, i wasn't for that bill as it came out of any ttee, nor were democrats in committee but they brought it to the floor and pulled it. nine days from tomorrow, nine legislative days from tomorrow, we'll have that issue of how we're going to fund government and keep it running. the senate just a few minutes ago refused to allow the senate, because the republican party voted no on bringing debate to close after days of debate and discussion, and they

voted no to take the h.u.d. bill up for discussion. so in both houses, the republican party has abandoned the appropriations process. .ow i've just said that hal rogers, chairman of the appropriations committee, conservative republican, says this -- i am extremely disappointed with the decision to pull the bill from the house calendar today. the prospects of passing this bill in september are bleak at best, given the vote count on the passage that was apparent this afternoon. with this action, the house has declined to proceed on implementation of the very budget it adopted without a ingle democratic vote. just three months ago. he went on to say, mr. rogers, conservative, kentucky, chairman of the appropriations committee, republican, thus i believe the house has made its

its e, sequestration and unrealistic, ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end. the ryan budget was unrealistic when it was considered on the floor. mr. rogers voted for that budget. he knew then it was unrealistic. he knew then it could not be implemented. i predicted it couldn't be implemented, just 30 additional seconds is that possible? ms. slaughter: yes, indeed. mr. hoyer: i predicted then if you took every democrat out of the house and every democrat out of the senate that that budget could not be implemented through the appropriations process through the ways and means process. and i was right. yes, we need to seek common ground. we're hurting the economy, we're undermining the confidence of the american

people and indeed, we're understood mining the confidence of our international partners. tom cole sits here, representing the rule committees. i want to tell everybody in america, tom cole is a reasonable member of this house. he's been a leader of this house. he wants to seek common ground in my view. so i do not criticize him but i say, mr. speaker, as you tap the gavel, time is not only running out on steny hoyer, time is running out on this house, time is running out on erica, time is running out americans who know their house is not working and now i yield back the balance of my time but we should not yield the balance of time for the american people and for our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has no time to yield back. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. cole: my friend, and he is my friend is really one of the great speakers in this chamber. i mean that with all sincerity. but this isn't the senate. we don't have unlimited debate over here. kind of stretching it a little bit. but it's always worth listening to. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? i used to be the majority leader and the thing i hated losing most was my magic one minute because as the gentleman will recall it was an unlimited one min. i yield become. mr. cole: i want to say, my friend, the gentleman, exercised it to the extreme but he's always worth listening to. and i want to underscore something my -- a point my good friend made because i do agree very much about government shutdown. i don't think that's a responsible tactic. i've seen it advocated from time to time by people on both sides of the aisle, we've had reports of it from advisors of the president, i wouldn't suggest the president would agree with that, but you know, i hope we don't get there.

i will pledge to work with my friend to make sure we do not. i also think, though, that we ought to recognize that we have worked together on some issues, we worked together on the fiscal cliff orange violence against women, we worked together on san diand on the c.r. in march. so there are times when we can come together. we're working together now, i expect the president will soon sign the student loan act, an act originated on our side, problems were in the senate side, passed, they came around, saw the same thing the president and we saw it on this side of the aisle. mr. hoyer: we think the president sent down a piece of legislation similar to yours, correct. we worked together. mr. cole: and we found common ground. i hope we can again. also when we're lectured a little bit on rules and we both wear these hats occasionally.

i will remind my friends when they were in the majority, the rules under which they brought a massive health care bill to this floor with almost no debate a massive stimulus, billions of dollars with essentially no debate and no consideration. the dodd-frank rule. so you know, whatever sins have been committed on our side of the aisle, i'd suggest this is one where you need to look at the log in your own eye in term os they have size and scope of that legislation and the rules that accompanied it. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cole: i will. mr. hoyer: the gentleman is is correct. both sides have done it. but you will recall your side criticized us very substantially and said you would not do it. that i think is the difference. but both sides, you're absolutely correct have brought rules that have been closed, limited. i yield back. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman. i seriously doubt that you have never said we wouldn't do this. i mean, i've heard the same thing when we talk about debt ceil, we know the rules -- roles get reversed from time to

time. i think this legislation and i think it's very significant legislation but i don't think it ranks with either of the three examples i gave in which this body was dot given the -- was not given the opportunity and i think the republican majority is here today largely because that's the way the house was operated the last time my friends had an opportunity to do that. but regardless of that, i appreciate my friend's remarks as always, always enjoy the exchange and with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: i look forward to working with the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves this egentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me some time to talk about one specific bill that this rule would allow the house to consider. and i would urge a no vote on the rule and a no vote on the

underlying bill, it's called the reins act. regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act. what does that mean? that's a bill that says any time there's a regulation adopted pursuant to a law we passed that losts over a certain amount of money, congress is going to pass the regulation. -- congress has to pass the regulation. that just delays things, means special interests can get in here and stop those regulations that -- that are needed to protect the public health and environment. and i want to give an example. i asked the rule committees to make in order that this particular bill shouldn't stop proposed food and drug administration food safety regulations. they didn't even allow me to offer that amendment. but the reason i wanted to offer that amendment and the reason this bill is not a good bill is that food-borne illnesses are -- we're seeing

outbreaks striking often and more frequently and that can happen to anybody. democrat or republican. foods we never thought would have imagined to be unsafe, everything from spinach to peanut butter, have sickened an untold number of americans. our food supply has also become increasingly globalized which poses another danger. so 50% of our fresh fruit and 20% of our fresh vegetables are imported. and this imported food is responsible -- responsible for a large share of the number of food-borne illnesses outbreaks. since 2011, eight of the 19 multistate outbreaks were from imports. so what did congress do? we said, we've got to do something about it. and we adopted a bill on a bipartisan basis called the f.d.a. food safety

modernization act. it passed in 2010. and that law provided with f.d.a. the power to set a way to police the food supply and make significant improvements throughout the food chain from the farm to the dinner table, o stop these unsafe foods. f.d.a. has been working hard to comply with this mandate and this year, they issued three proposed rules that would implement some of thee the key pieces of the food safety -- some of the key pieces of the food safety regulation. one rule would require farmers to comply with science-based standards for safe production and harvesting of produce. another would require companies that process or package foods to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur. would the gentlelady yield me an additional 20 minutes or at least one.

ms. slauger: i think 20 seconds. no i'll give you another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: and the purpose of these rules are to stop and prevent the jut break of food-borne illnesses. last week, f.d.a. issued a proposed rule to mandate that importers demonstrate that the food they bring into the country is safe. well, these rules would not be allowed to go into effect until congress, both the house of representatives and the senate of the united states, with all their committees and subcommittees, meet to consider the regulations that f.d.a. adopted. and while they're doing all of that, we're still exposed to food-borne illnesses. my amendment would have made this process of the reins bill unnecessary as it aplays to this particular area but it illustrates why the reins bill

is not well thought through. congress shouldn't have to adopt every regulation. if we adopt a law saying to an agency adopt regulations based on the science, adopt regulations to enforce the law, so i would urge -- oppose the rule and oppose the reins bill as well. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. there were 87 new members of the congress elected in the last session of the congress. and about half of them republicans, half of them democrats. i'll tell you what, we all got the same message in the last election.

that was that people in this ountry had had it with gridlock and partisanship. they wanted to see some more collaboration, some cooperation. some problem solving. fixing things. getting things done. and there is so much that we agree on, i mean, our roads are in need of repair, our bridges are literally falling down, the middle class is getting crushed, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting crushed, we all want to erebuild this middle class. there are millions of people who are unemployed every day and millions more who are underemployed. mr. speaker, i've got to tell you, i'm a businessman. i've been a business owner, responsible for the bottom line and getting things done in my business. and i've got to tell you if we weren't getting the job done, we wouldn't be going on a

or week recess vacation whatever it is you want to call it. there are so many pressing needs and we're scheduled to be in session for nine days in september? we know what those months and tuesdays are like. nothing happens here. so we're looking at about three or four days and what have we got to deal with? appropriations, budget, farm bill, jobs bill, immigration, transportation, debt ceiling, and there are members of this congress that are calling for a shutdown of the federal government. . i wanted to address two things today. one is let's postpone or delay this recess. let's take up a couple things. like i said, our bridges are falling down. let's take up the safe bridges act that congressman rahall has offered. let's take up the american jobs act that the president has offered. let's put people to work in this country. and let's support congresswoman

slaughter's motion to defeat the previous question and amend it to allow for consideration of the safe bridges act. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, what is particularly frustrating about what we are doing here today is that this is a colossal waste of time. we are taking up five bills going nowhere in the senate. the president has already issued veto threats on all of them. these are just press releases that the republican national committee has decided would be good things for republican members to release in their district. none of this stuff is meaningful. it's going nowhere. we are also repealing the affordable care act for the 40th time. what the gentleman says is the affordable care act is not

popular, i would remind him we had a preffren dumb on the affordable care act, it was called the presidential election. last i checked mitt romney is not in the white house. that election was all about the affordable care act. we are doing this meaningless stuff and we have nine legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year. before we approach a government shut down. we have people on the other side of the aisle, people running for president on the other side of the aisle, publicly bragging about how they want to shut the government down. i have great respect for the gentleman from oklahoma. i think he's a reasonable, rational, good member of this congress. i wish there were more like him on his side of the aisle, but there aren't. and in fact the republican party is being ruled by the fringe right wing elements of that party. those who are pushing for a shut down. those who are saying compromise on nothing. those who are defeat the farm bill. those who helped, quite

frankly, are insisting on budget numbers that are so unbelievably low for things like our infrastructure that they had to pull the transportation-h.u.d. bill from the floor yesterday. we ought to be fixing sequester. chris van hollen on our side of the aisle has an alternative to sequester. we ought to vote on it. my republican friends haven't allowed a vote on an alternative sequester all year. nothing. we ought to go on conference on the budget so we can actually get a budget, so we can have reasonable numbers on our appropriations bills. we can pass and be proud that we are doing something to put people back to work. we are doing nothing in this house. we ought not go on recess until we do the people's business. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. we did have a referendum on obamacare. what we got was a split decision because while the american people certainly re-elected the president, they also re-elect add republican house. that's a hard thing --

re-elected a republican house. that's a hard thing to achieve in what my friends regard is a great victory. 435 different rendums about this. so the american people for whatever reason either wanted debate to continue or certainly didn't want to leave the president as they did in 2009 and 2010 with seengsly total control over the legislative branch. they didn't like what they -- essentially total control over the legislative branch. they didn't like what they saw. as for our friends in the senate, letting them decide what the agenda is going to be in the house is a mistake. they don't get a lot done over there. every now and then they'll surprise you. i remember hearing these same arguments about the student loan act. we were planning and proposing even though it was relatively close to what the president proposed, was never going to happen. in fact, if you remember, at one point i think, if i recall correctly, the president himself issued a veto threat against the legislation. so had we followed our friends'

advice, everybody's student loans in america would be skyrocketing right now. every now and then you just have to go out, fight for the things that you believe in, and amazingly sometimes the united states senate will come around and occasionally the president of the united states will change his mind or at least decide this was close enough to be good enough. i would suggest we just continue to get up every day as we all do, work as best we can for the things that we believe in, and at the end of the day, believe me, the american people will make a judgment. we'll see what happens. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from new mexico, a member of the committee on oversight and government reform, miss lujan grisham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. miss lujan grisham: -- ms. grisham: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to this rule. every weekend i go home to new

mexico and my constituents always ask me, what's going on in congress? what is congress doing to create jobs and grow the economy and end the sequester? there are currently 2,000 constituents in my districts who are getting fur will hed every week and they want -- furloughed every week and they want to in a moment there are countless teachers, construction workers, small business owners, and first responders, and they want to know. unfortunately the answer is nothing. and it's because the house republican leadership. they simply cannot govern. yesterday republicans pulled the transportation, houching and urban development appropriations bill from the schedule. it was it saying the sequester and republican budget are not feasible. tomorrow we return for a five-week district work period and we still haven't passed a budget that replaces the sequester, reduces the deficit, or comprehensive immigration reform. instead of addressing any of these critical issues, house republicans have decided that it's more important to vote one more time to repeal the

affordable care act for the 40th time. mr. speaker, new mexicans and americans in congress need to focus on jobs and economic growth. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to respond to my friend's points that, a number have made, about the issue of sequester. i simply want to remind them whose idea it was. if they have any doubt, they should read the bob woodward book the price of politics and follow the correspondent -- course -- correspond that came after the book was published. the idea of the sequester was the president's proposal. he proposed it. he advocated for t he signed it into law. that's -- he advocated for it. he signed it into law. now we hear from our friends, gosh the republicans won't undo it. we didn't mean it would actually ever happen. we have had this discussion. the simple truth is we are

willing to renegotiate where the cuts come from. we actually agree with our friends on that. what they are not willing to do is actually reduce spending. that's essentially what the debate is about. this is the method that the president recommended, and advocated for. if he wants to do it something this house twice in the last term d. our friends in the senate never picked it up and the president never came with a counteroffer. we are sort of still waiting over here. if the president would like to redistribute the cuts i have no doubt the speaker would like to talk to him. the idea we would simply undo it and lose the savings is also unlikely to occur. let's sit down. we know there are better ways to do this. we are willing to do it or our side. we are not willing to raise taxes or lose savings. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from nevada, member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, ms. titus. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. i rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. i'm especially disappointed that my amendment to h.r. 367, the reins act, wasn't made in order. my amendment would have protected women and children from the delay in obstructionism in this bill by exempting the family medical leave act, the healthy hunger free kids act, individual with disabilities education act, and the lily ledbetter fair play act. some of the bills' intrusive provisions. these four laws safeguard the economic, social, and physical well-being of women and children in nevada and across the country. they give mothers the chance to care for a new child, ensure that our students have access to nutritional food, protect the rights of students with disabilities, and help women fight for equal pay for equal work. my amendment would have offered the republicans a chance to be

reasonable and dial back their war on the most vulnerable this our country. h.r. 367, like the other bills being considered under this rule, would hinder our government's ability to serve the people and is simply a waste of valuable time. i urge my colleagues to reject it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, a member of the committee on oversight and government reform, ms. duckworth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. duckworth: i thank the gentlelady from new york for yielding. mr. speaker, instead of bickering over partisan pieces of legislation that will go nowhere, we should be working to fix the sequester and hammer out a budget that creates jobs, grows our middle class, and responsibly reduces the deficit. we should be taking up a well funded transportation housing and appropriations bill rather than the draconian measures

that drastically underfund projects like those in my home district. we need to make investments to rebuild our bridges, improve our infrastructure, and to keep our children safe. we should be working on comprehensive immigration reform that is practical, fair, and humane. reform a pathway to citizenship, expand our work force, secure our borders, and bring new revenue to help us balance our budget. i was sent to washington to work on legislation that creates jobs and tackles the deficit. i don't want to leave for a five-week district work period without taking some action on our critical unfinished business. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question we will offer on our side an amendment to the rule that allows the house to consider the safe bridges act, which

funds emergency repairs and creates countless american jobs. we are about to go into a five-week break, mr. speaker, and so far the congress has done nothing to end the sequestration or to create jobs for the country. my amendment will prevent the house from going home until we have done the job we were sent here to do and to discuss our proposal i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington state, a member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, mr. larsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to support ranking member slaughter's motion to call up the safe bridges act. in may, a portion of a bridge on interstate 5 in my district collapsed into the river. like most of my constituents, i have driven over that bridge hundreds of times. the fact that no one died when it collapsed was a blessing, but not everyone has been so lucky. my colleagues will remember in the when a bridge spanning

mississippi and minneapolis crashed during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. today i want to ask my colleagues a very simple question, should not americans be able to drive across a highway bridge with a reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath them? 67,000 bridges in our country are rated structurally deficient. 67,000 bridges. when those bridges fall, it isn't just the unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. whole economies that rely on safe and efficient transportation suffer. the i-5 bridge across the river just doesn't connect burlington and mount vernon, it connects the entire west coast and carries millions of dollars' worth of trade every day between can in a dean and the u.s. here's the good news. we know how to build safe bridges. there are thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives today to building good structures that don't fall down, but we need to pay for thefment we need to maintain them. maintain them when they are old

and replace them when they need to. we can't wait for them to crumble into the water below. in light of this need, how much has this congress done to improve bridge safety or invest in infrastructure? mr. speaker, that is a sound of how much congressional action has been taken. nothing. just yesterday, the house pulled the transportation and housing bill because they couldn't find enough republicans to support it. we need to take up the act by mr. rahall that immediately invests in bridges and rather than repealing obamacare for we 40th time this congress, should support infrastructure for the first time. if you believe your constituents should be able to you over a bridge safely,

should vote against this bill. i ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: is the gentleman prepared to close? ok. sequestration is hitting hard across the country. public servants are furloughed, children are being shut out of head start, but meanwhile, the majority's repeatedly refwused to repeal the sequester and failed to pass a single jobs bill creation into law. the american people need taos stop these political games and get down to work creating jobs and rebuilding this economy. now is not the time to adjourn congress and we should not leave here until we have produced real results for the american families that are truly struggling to get by. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of

the amendment into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to begin by reminding my friends whose idea sequester was. it was the president of the united states. the president likes to take some credit and in some ways he deserves some for our budget deficit coming down but frankly after four trillion-dollar deficits in a row, a republican congress came into office and that deficit is now moving down, it's about half what it was system of we've worked with the president to actually achieve something he said he wanted to, which is lower the deficit. likes to take credit for it. second, i'd like to also remind my friends, mr. speaker, in closing, that i think these bills really are good bills.

they provide important checks on the expanding power of the executive branch. how many times have all of us gone home and been regaled with tales of bureaucrats that are simply out of control, rules that make no sense or have an enormous economic impact? it happens all the time. that needs to change. senator daniel webster described the federal government as, quote, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. i would suggest we've forgotten the last of those three phrases, answerable to the people. that's what these bills are about, trying to make the federal government more responsible -- responsive an more answerable to the people. the underlying bills recognize just that and restore the power of governance to elected officials, not to unaccountable washington bureaucrats. i would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: 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 ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, may i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. f

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent for five legislative days for members to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 315 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration-h.r. 1582. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1582, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect consumers by prohibiting the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating as final certain energy related rules that will cost more than $1 billion and cause significant adverse effects to the economy. the chair: when the committee

of the whole house on the state of the union rose on wednesday, july 31, 2013, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 pribt -- printed in house report 113-174 offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, had been postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-174. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four prinned in house report 113-174, offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 315, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall and a member opposed each will control five mins. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume to talk about an amendment that recognizes that knowledge is power. so often today we've talked

about what we can do to make the government more accountable to the people. one of those things is entailed in the underlying bill that says for the big rules that make a big difference, tell us what it is that you did. how did you come to this decision that this is the rule you want to implement? my amendment goes one step further and asks for the underlying data on which that decision was made. we want to know what the calculations were. it's going to be a good step forward if we get agencies to share with us their modeling, but one step further would be the call cue lages that went into the modeling and came out of the modeling. what about the underlying data, mr. speaker? how in the world can we be in conversation with the american people as the congress with the agencies if we don't have access to the underlying data. again, this is not a trade secret. this is not private information, this is the information that the agency

uses to promulgate these rules that will govern the entire united states of america. we simply say, the disclosure of that data won't violate any laws, if it won't violate any trade secrets, if it's not going to be in violation of any applicable federal laws, share that with america, post that on your webpage so anyone interested in understanding how it is that these decisions that often go on behind closed door that often go on without the oversight of the public, not just what did you decide, but how did you decide it? very difficult whether you're a republican or a democrat, to hold the considered experts at these agencies accountable if you can't see the underlying data that went into their calculations. s that simple amendment that says, please share that with us. we're not questioning your expertise, we want to be part of the process. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to -- i seek time in opposition to theament. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman and my colleagues, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the supporters would claim that it's about transparency, but what it's really about is not transparency, it's about a way to block or delay critical e.p.a. rules. that's what this whole bill is all about. the amendment does the same thing. using rhetoric about transparency to cloud the amendment's true impact. the amendment would prevent e.p.a. from using the best science available when implementing its public health laws. it accomplishes this by not allowing e.p.a. to rely on any scientific study unless the agency can publish on its website all of the underlying

data associated with that study. today, e.p.a. prides itself on using the best science available, the agency understands that ideology will not stand the test of time, but science will. and their rules have to be, and regulations have to be, based on the science. so they gladly inform stake holders and the public about the studies upon which they rely. but the underlying data to peer reviewed studies is often not published. that's because the data sets underlying peer reviewed scientific studies are the property of the scientists that spend their career gathering that information. e.p.a. cannot require the scientists to give up their private information. oftentimes, those studies involve going to a lot of people and trying to find out

the impact of certain exposure to pollute taps. -- pollutants. those people agree to the study on the basis that this information about them will not be made public. but this amendment would say it would be impossible for e.p.a. to use gold standard scientific studies available to them unless they post this other data on their website. why do we want to prevent e.p.a. from using high quality, scientific studies to set new pollution standards? this is an issue that came up many years ago. 1997, e.p.a. used a study conducted by researchers at harvard to set a new air quality standard for particulate matter. they did a rigorous, peer-reviewed study that was conducted over a period of 16 years. and harvard people showed

conclusively that exposure to particulate matter in the air can kill people. well polluters said, we don't want e.p.a. to issue this rule, it's going to cost us money. so they said that the e.p.a. should publish all of the harvard scientists' data, clipping the scientists were keeping a secret. well the data -- claiming the scientists were keeping a secret. well the data is the work product of the harvard scientists, not e.p.a. the agency couldn't release the information. they're relying on the harvard scientists to give independent scientists' access after the scientists signed a confidentiality agreement so independent scientists spent the next three years reanalyzing the data and came to exactly the same conclusion. there should be no objection to e. perform a. relying on studies like this one, it's a long-term study work a huge sample, this is exactly the kind of rigorous review we

expect of the e.p.a. i urge opposition to this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 15 seconds to say, nothing could be further from the truth. there's a specific provision in this amendment that says you shall not disclose anything for which the disclosure would violate your commitments under federal law. all we're asking for is whatever e.p.a. saw, whatever the agency saw to make their decision, if it was good enough for the agency, shouldn't it be good enough for congress as well? with that, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from louisiana, mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy: i can't understand why somebody would object to this. this amplifies the transparency. e.p.a. can impose rules which cause tens or even hundreds of the u.s. f dollars on

economy, those expenses translate into job loss. having access to the underlying information and the estimates of cost and benefits is critical to know what that is. as regard, as my colleagues said, there is no reason to have to reveal information about individuals, but let me just point out to the medical literature. in the medical literature there is a push that the federal government funds research that that underlying data is made available to the general public. when the f.d.a. reviews drugs, d.a. will look at underlying data. why for required medicationings, which affect many people, but not the e.p.a. having methodology which is transparent is absolutely essential in modern medical, modern scientific literature. i don't see why there is an objection to it unless the hope is that e.p.a. can satisfy an idea lonlical bent without having to justify it. this amendment will provide

more transparency for e.p.a.'s billion dollar rules. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. the american people cannot afford to have jobs shipped overseas or have their economy otherwise wrecked. more rationality, transparency, and accountability must be brought to the e.p.a. and its rule making process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the fact of the matter is that e.p.a. does not have this underlying data. it doesn't belong to e.p.a. it belongs to the scientists who did the study. consider this issue in a different context. if a pharmaceutical manufacturer wants to bring a new product to market, they would never be required to post all of their underlying data on the public website in order for f.d.a. to rely on it. there is no other agency that would be held to such an unreasonable requirement as this amendment would impose on

the e.p.a.. they review the data, but they don't put it on their website. e.p.a. does not have the underlying data. and they can't require that the owners of the underlying data who did the study often based on confidential agreements for those who participate in the study, they can't require that study be given to them. they are relying on the scientific data and the study results. i think that it's -- all this would do is make it more difficult for e.p.a. to put -- protect the public health. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i ask the chair how much time remains. the chair: 1 1/4 minute. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say i think i speak for most of america that says i understand the government has decisions, but since the government is making those decisions on my behalf,

shouldn't the government share with me the data that it uses to make those decisions? the gentleman says this is going to hold ep taupe a higher standard than the other agencies. the gentleman, perhaps every agency. all we are saying is if you have seen the data, if you have utilized the data, if you believe this is sound enough science on which to base a regulation that is going to cost not $1, not $100, not $1,000, not $1 million but more than $1 billion, isn't it worth sharing with the american people how you reach that conclusion? mr. chairman, the work that we do here, we should be proud enough of to share with absolutely anyone who asks. this is about traps. even if you don't -- transparency. even if you don't support the underlying bill, i'm a strong supporter, even if you don't you should support in the context of transparency providing the underlying materials to the american

public that went into this decisionmaking process. mr. chairman, this is a great step forward as a transparency tool for the american public to restore that faith in government that has been lost. i rise in strong support of the underlying bill and ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. i chair understands that amendment number 5 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in art b of house report 113-174. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i have an amendment made in order. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. e clerk: amendment number 6, printsed in part b of house report number 113-174, offered by mr. murphy of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 315, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize myself for two minutes. i have an amendment in order that would prohibit the e.p.a. from using the social cost of carbon estimates that costs more than $1 billion unless and until the federal laws enacting authorizing such use. the administration slipped into a rule about microwave offense, a new prediction for the cost of carbon dioxide emissions between now and the year 2,300. despite the profound implication to the economy and families who make a living from coal, there was no public

debate, no stakeholder comment, no vote in congress on this new estimate. in southwestern pennsylvania, coal is our heritage. it fires the steel mills, it built the empire state building, golden state bridge, but that heritage and prosperity is threatened by this new regulation. we have already seen what the social costs of the war on coal is today. the cost is jobs. three weeks ago more than 380 workers at the hatfield sperry and mitchell power plants in pennsylvania were told they were losing their jobs. the plants had to shut down under e.p.a. regulations after they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in new environmental modernizations. more than 15 organizations representing workers and stakeholders endorse my amendment because these groups share my concern that this regulation that bypassed congressional oversight would put hundreds of thousands of miners, boilermakers, factory workers, laborers, electricians, operating engineers, machinists out of work.

my amendment says congress not the end ep decides regulations by considering what this means to the families and workers. the e.p.a.'s policies have real world consequences, annual coal production in central appalachia is dropping sharply by more than half in five years' time. there are towns where mines are shutting down, where a staggering 41% of the residents fall below the poverty line. the social cost of carbon and the wider war on coal is a war on the american worker and their family. let me show you the real cost of the e.p.a.'s rules. those who oppose this amendment ignore the health effects of those living in poverty who are twice as likely to have a risk of depression, asthma, obesity, diabetes, heart attack, and other health effects. poverty leads to devastated communities, early death, the loss dreams of a generation of americans and their children. many of us can remember bobby kennedy's walkthrough the broken appalachian coal towns back in the 1960's to illustrate the abject poverty where families and children

were living. i worked and volunteered in those towns, trying to help families hang on to some sort of semblance of hope in a hard scrabble life. i yield myself additional time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. murphy: too often their hope failed and now history is about to repeat itself. first jobs are lost and after that hundreds of thousands, when people lose their jobs we give them unemployment compensation. they go hungry, we give them food stamps. they lose their homes we give them public housing. they lose their dignity and pride, and the government has nothing left to give. nothing. when all these folks ever wanted was a job, a job and a chance for the american dream not shattered by the e.p.a. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minute. mr. waxman: the murphy

amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. it prohibits the environmental protection agency from considering the costs of climate change when analyzing the impacts of its rules. according to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is ero. we are telling e.p.a. the cost of carbon pollution is zero. it's like me waving a magic wand. that going to degree climate change imposes no costs at all. the house republicans can vote for this amendment, they can try to block e.p.a. from recognizing the damage caused by climate change, but they cannot overturn the laws of nature. we should be heeding the warges

of the world's leading climate scientists, not denying reality . and the real world. scientific instruments, accurately measure the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the levels trapped in ancient ice. those measurements tell us that carbon dioxide levels just hit 400 parts per million this spring. and that's the highest levels in the last three million years. in the real world higher levels of heat trapping carbon pollution are warming the planet and changing the climate. we are experiencing more record breaking temperatures, worse droughts, longer wildfire seasons, with more intense wildfires, and increased number of intense storms, more flooding, and rapidly rising sea levels.

pretend it doesn't happen. pretend that it's not the reality. on the other hand, as a proponent of this amendment suggested, let's look at the impact on the family that may lose its job. it would ignore the costs of carbon pollution. we are seeing the effect of climate change, not sometime in the future, but right now. and we are being told it's not going to get better by itself. it's going to get worse. scientist vs. been telling us for years -- scientists have been telling us for years. e.p.a. and other federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the cost of climate change and take them into account when they issue new standards. that's common sense. and that was the clear message from the government accountability office when it

dded climate change to its high-risk list earlier this year. and that's exactly what the obama administration is doing. an interagency task force that worked over the course of several years to estimate the cost of the harm from carbon pollution. it incorporated the latest scientific and technical information. i'm sorry if people lose their jobs, but they don't have to lose their jobs. if an industry is told to reduce carbon emissions, they don't have to fire people, they can develop and buy the technology that would reduce that pollution. so to help those polluters not have to do that, we are going to pretend there's no cost. mr. murphy's amendment would require the government to assume zero harm, zero cost from carbon pollution and climate change. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. it's based on magical thinking.

don't be a science denier. vote against the amendment and i reserve whatever time i have left. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. murphy: how much time do we have left on our side? the chair: you have 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california has one minute. mr. murphy: i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from the number two coal producing state in america. the chair: the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of my colleague mr. murphy's amendment and opposition to the e.p.a.'s arbitrary backdoor approach to regulating emissions. these regulations would and are having a catastrophic effect on jobs and economic activity across the country, especially in our coal-producing states such as west virginia and pennsylvania. this is nothing more than a gimmick used to circumvent congress so an anti-domestic forward. nda can move

perhaps in no yun's surprise, just as the administration is stepping up its effort to issue regulations aimed at closing existing plants and stopping new ones it decided without public comment or transparency to increase the cost of carbon by 44%. the fact is u.s. carbon emissions from the energy sector have fallen in the last four of five years. i am not willing to sacrifice west virginia jobs to the administration's ideological efforts. i ask my colleagues to put jobs ahead of politics and pass the murphy amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: mr. chairman, we have how much time on our side? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: i thank the

gentleman from pennsylvania. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: i rise in strong support of the murphy amendment and i also want to say we should vote for that in conjunction with the gentleman from georgia's amendment that was just heard previously. if you walk into a greenhouse anywhere in america, do you know what the average carbon concentration will be? it won't be 350 parts per million. it won't be 400 parts per million. it will be over 1,000 parts per million. we have records that indicate the co-2 concentration in the upper atmosphere has been as high as 5,000 to 6,000 parts per million in the past. the gentleman from california those adhering his philosophy would have you believe having a carbon concentration of 350 to

400 parts per million is cataclysmic. nothing can be farther from the truth. and this new carbon calculation that the e.p.a. and the d.o.e. have begun to include needs to be at a minimum made transparent, and i think it's fine until we have the fact that it shouldn't be allowed at all. so vote for the murphy amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman and my lleagues, this is not my philosophy that would lead me to urge that we reduce carbon emissions. , s based on the science thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated that carbon causes problems. it causes health effects. it threatens the climate. the homeowners in arizona,

texas, colorado and california who have seen their homes ravaged by drought, stoked wildfires know the cost of carbon pollution. the families of brave firefighters knew the cost of carbon pollution. the farmers and ranchers suffering the effects of prolonged drought, many of whom have lost entire crops or have been forced to sell their livestock, know the cost of carbon pollution. and the thousands who lost businesses and homes after hurricane sandy slammed into the east coast knew the cost of carbon pollution. that cost is not based on a philosophy. it's based on the science and the reality. reject this magical thinking amendment. don't be a science denier. vote against the amendment and the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. murphy: mr. chairman, this isn't about denying science.

it's about denying jobs and denying opportunity. the underlying amendment here is supported by the boilermakers, the electrical workers, the carp pen ters, the american energy alliance, national taxpayers union and chamber of commerce because they want jobs and they don't want poverty and poverty, mr. chairman, is the number one threat to the environment. poverty is the number one threat to public health. it's time that congress took charge of regulations and not unregulated divisions of the government. mr. chairman, i ask members to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. waxman: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration 1582 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1582 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

and to focus on making sure that americans have jobs and that they can make it in america. democrats will be going home to our districts to talk about our plan to create jobs that. plan is called make it in america. it ames to create jobs and invest in long term economic comp petiveness. we still have a lot of work to do. this april we relaunched the make it in america agenda for the 113th congress and announced four core areas that we believe are critical to achieving its goals. these areas come price a platform that everyone can get behind. this is a unifying agenda. i tell my colleagues i can go to the most conservative district in america, the most republican district in america

or the most liberal district in america and talk about make it in america, manufacturing, growing goods, selling them here and around the world and i guarantee you every head is shaking. that's what we ought to be doing. it is a unifying agenda. not a divide ago general da. these areas of focus come price a platform that everyone can get behind, democrats, republicans, labor, business, everyone. the four core components of make it in america are adopting and pursuing a national manufacturing strategy. that bill was passed with over 360 votes in the last congress. i'm hopeful when we return in ptember mr. can nor will bring it to the floor and it will receive over 350 votes again. why? because we're going to have a

playbook to compete with the other teams whether it's china, india, germany, not to beat them but to compete with them and to do well. so we need a plan. secondly promoting u.s. exports. make it here, sell it here and around the world. thirdly, encouraging business to bring jobs and invasion back to the united states. tax preferences for manufacturing here creating goods here and selling them abroad, not the other way around. and lastly ininvesting in training and securing a 21st century work force. every business person i've talked to throughout this country. every labor union i've talked to agrees if we're going to compete it will be because we train a 21st century work force. n hools, frankly in elementary schools, the president's program on early childhood

education is related to getting people early, 2, 3, 4 years of age, getting them on the right educational track so they can participate in growing our economy. i want to thank all the members who have introduced bills. i want to thank the republicans who have joined as co-sponsors. we will continue to seek bipartisan support. growing jobs ought to be a bipartisan issue. it is agenda the president is taking to the american public. it is what he came to do and did in fact to do. he talked about jobs. we believe these bills create jobs, strengthen our economy and grow opportunities for the middle class. they promote green manufacturing and green jobs. facilitate u.s. trade in products and invest in skills fraining for a competitive work

force. you'll hear from several sponsors of those bills today. congress ohs it to the american people to take action on jobs. i hope when we return in september republicans and democrats can work together to bring make it in america bills to the floor and grow jobs and opportunities, not simply spend time on bills that are going nowhere and everybody knows they are not going anywhere. i am pleased to yield to my very good friend who represent it is birth place of manufacturing in america, rhode island, david. >> i'm a congressman from the first district in the birth place of the revolution. i president want to thank you for holding this press conference and spear heading the make it in america agenda.

pleased to join my colleagues who are part of this effort. earlier this year i introduced the make it in america legislation act to help small and immediate yume sized facilities buy equipment and retrain workers they need to compete in a global'1"st century economy. we have to start making things again in america and we have to enact policies that support america manufacturing rather than juned mine it. there are new opportunities in advanced manufacturing at the intersection of invasion and design we should take advantage of right away. as an example in my home district the 3d printing revolution is taking an idea from concept to production. this is a critical moment for our country to understand the value of making things again in

america. the president outlined his ideas earlier this week of reinvigorating our manufacturing sector by creating new manufacturing instutes. it's time for congress to take up this legislation that will put our country back to work and crote good paying jobs all across our country. the make it in america agenda will do just that. it is my pleasure to introduce my colleague from the great state of connecticut, elizabeth. >> thank you although i would like to say connecticut would like to lay claim to that birth place claim as well. thank you for the passion that is essential in this country. i want to thank all of my colleagues here today. when i visited small businesses and manufacturers in my district, i hear over and over again congress needs to focus

on job creation. it is still tough out there for too many people. manufacturers in my district and all across the country are making strides through hard work and invasion but they need the benefit of a level playing field to be competitive in the global economy and we need a national manufacturing strategy. there are great initiatives already in place but we need to strengthen them so we can leverage talent and resources across all levels of government. the e-3 initiative which stands for economy, energy and the environment is a trance formative collaborative grame pork and is making a difference across the country, assessing needs, cutting cost and promoting sustainability. i'm proud to introduce the e-3 initiative evaluation act as part of the make it in america plan. my bill would help strengthen and support this initiative for

the long term to provide certainty, to ensure that manufacturers and communities in my district and all across america have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this framework. folks in america are looking to this program as a way to help improve the manufacturing process but they worry about certainty when not one jobs bill has been brought up in this congress. i've been listening to folks in my district and it's time for the house to vote on a jobs bill. make it in america bills to ensure that our country can compete on a global scale and create jobs right here at home. and it is my honor to introduce another fellow new englander from the great state of new hampshire. >> thank you mr. hoir for bringing us together and for you to being here for this important message. one thing we can agree on

whether we are republican or democrat is we need to train a highly skilled work force. that is part of our make it in merk agenda as well. everyone knows it is critical for growing our economy, for creating jobs and for strengthening this middle class. there are companies in new hampshire and all across this untry that have job openings available and they are looking to hire but struggling to find workers with the right skills for the jobs. i have been meeting with companies all across my district. i call this congress at your company and we're up to 20 companies we've had a chance to visit and chair their concerns. and every single visit is number one issue they bring to me is training and work force development. in april i was thrilled to have congressman hoyer join me in touring one of the firms in my district. it happens to be a five

generation company that's gone from ancient technology to the most modern technology available. so my bill, the work force development investment act will help close the skills gap by providing tax insent toifs business that is team up with local educators, our university system and community colleges to teach our students the skills they need to compete and succeed. that's just common sense. when we invest in your work force, more employers will invest in america, and our businesses will be more successful in the global economy. my favorite part of every trip is to get to the end of the tour to shipping and receiving and see boxes with american made goods marked ship to shanghai. hat is what congress should be focused on to create jobs and grow the economy and strengthen

the middle class. from mes to district us the challenges our nation faces. 315 and rule 18, the chai declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1582. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1582, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect consumers by prohibiting the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating as final certain energy related rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effect to the economy. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, a request for recorded

vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 113-174, offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-174, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. waxman of california. amendment number 3 by mr. connolly of virginia. amendment number 6 by mr. murphy of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-174, by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 113-174, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 183 to 228.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 18 3rk the nays are 230. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-174 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, chon further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part d of house report 113-174 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 182, the nays are 224. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-174 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, on which further pr seedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 113-174, offered by mr. murphy of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the eas are 235 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 178. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises.

mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1582 and i report the bill back to the house with an amendment ain the committee of the whole. -- amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings -- the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1582 and pursuant to house resolution 315 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. hose in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes seem to have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to protect consumers from prohibiting the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more an $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effects to economy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. he house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i have recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed? mrs. capps: yes. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. cassidy: i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: points of order are reserved. the clerk will report. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1582 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the ouse forthwith with an amendment. at the end, section 5, protecting the health of children and seniors. it would not apply to rules that would result in cancers, asthma attacks, respiratory disease in children or seniors.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. thereafter, an opponent -- > the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to offer the final amendment to the bill, and i want to be clear. passage of this amendment will not prevept passage of the underlying -- prevent passage of the underlying bill. if adopted my amendment will be corporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. as currently written, h.r. 1582 would cripple the ability of the environmental protection agency to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe. my amendment simply ensures that the e.p.a. can continue to

protect children and seniors from the harmful impacts of pollution. my friends across the aisle claim this bill is about transparency, bus it what it is. just another attempt to block the e.p.a. from doing its job. this bill makes no sense on so many levels. it's redundant and it's unnecessary. it gives the energy secretary unprecedented authority to veto e.p.a. rules, and it allows for indefinite delays of e.p.a. rulemaking. our top priority should be the health of our children and of our families, not the bottom line of polluting energy companies. it's scary to think how many e.p.a. protections -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will please come to order. the gentlewoman is recognized.

mrs. capps: it's frightening to think how many e.p.a. protections that we now take for granted would have been delayed or derailed if this bill were law. consider the recently finalized mercury and air toxic standards. before these rules, there were no federal standards limiting power plant emissions of toxic pollutants like mercury and arsenic. as we know, these toxic ploutants are really poison -- pollutants are really poison. they cause a variety of health problems in those of all ages. they affect brain problems in children. they can have birth defects when pregnant women are opposed. that's why they put standards on these toxic emissions. standards that sets up future generations for success while also reducing preventable health care costs. if h.r. 1582 had been law, these rules could have been delayed indefinitely or not happened at all. mr. speaker, my friends across

the aisle talk frequently about the financial costs of these and other e.p.a. actions. the speaker pro tempore: will the house come it order? the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: but what about the health care costs, costs that all of us pay when these preventable ailments occur? and what about the human costs of inaction? delaying the air toxic standards for just one additional year would have resulted in more than 11,000 heart attacks, more than 120,000 asthma attacks, more than 12,000 more hospital and mergency room visits and up to 25,300 lives lost due to smog, due to soot, due to toxic air pollution and that's just in one year. mr. speaker, people should be more important than profit. my amendment speaks to just

this. it would simply shield the rules that protect the health of children and of seniors from this dangerous bill. if my colleagues are serious about protecting our children and our seniors, they should have no trouble supporting this amendment. more than anyone, children and seniors rely on the e.p.a. to do their job protecting the environment. the mercury and air toxic rules are helping children and families across the nation live healthier, longer lives. perhaps polluters find these rules inconvenient, but the american people certainly don't. they want clean air to breathe. they want clean water to drink. and they want the peace of mind that come from strong standards. my amendment makes sure that this never takes the backseat to the financial interests of our polluters. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make sure that the health and well-being of our children and seniors always comes first. i yield back the balance of my ime.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. cassidy: mr. speaker, i claim the time in opposition to the motion. withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: this bill doesn't cripple anything. laws that are currently on the books stay on the books. the problem is that the e.p.a. uses bad science. i say that not as a republican. i say that as quoting other scientists. for example, a gentleman who is a former member of the harvard school of public health testified that e.p.a.'s statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and uncertainty. a physician from the colorado school of public health said that the way that e.p.a. uses statistics is highly misleading to public policymakers. i will make the point. you cannot be pro-family unless you're pro-environment and you cannot be pro-environment unless you're pro-family. but you can't be either unless co first ha atrong and

relief act simply, simply, umers simply puts a check on the $1 billion energy rules that may hurt american families costing american jobs. if you support transparency and good government, you should support this bill. if you support protecting american families and consumers from higher energy costs, you should support h.r. 1582. if you support having the families, needed for for environmental and health protections, you should support 1582. if you're pro-jobs, pro-economic growth and anti-poverty, you should support h.r. 1582. i urge you to vote no on the motion to recommit. i ask you to support the energy consumers relief act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. recognizing the long-term partnership and friendship between the united states and the hashemite kingdom of jordan, working together towards peace and security in the middle east. printed in part pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1582, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 322, adoption of house resolution 322, if ordered and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 1897. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 188, the nays are 221. the motion is not adopt the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: on that vote, i demand a roll call. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this bill, the yeas are 232 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this bill, the yeas are 232, the nays are 18 1. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 322, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 349, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 367 to amend chapter of title 5 united states code code to provide that major rules of the

executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. providing for consideration of h.r. 2009, to prohibit the secretary of the treasury from enforcing the patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010 proceedings from august 3, 2013, to september 6, 2013, and provide for consideration of providing r. 2639, for investigative leave requirements for members of the senior executive service to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by exec tiff branch employees with individuals 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 five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222 and the nays are 191. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- ms. slaughter: mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, may i request the yeas and nays? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york has requested the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. recognizing the long-term partnership and friendship between the united states and the hashemite kingdom of jordan, working together towards peace and security in the middle east. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223 and the nays are 189. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will be in order. he house will come to order. he house will come to order. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bonner: mr. speaker, as many of our colleagues know, tomorrow will mark my last day to walk onto this house floor as a member of the united states house of representatives . since i announced my plans to leave this place in late may, a place where i have been so privileged to honor to work for the last 28 years, 18 as a staffer and the last 10 1/2 as

a representative, the past few days and weeks, as you might imagine, have been rather poignant. so many of you, my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have been so kind to offer an encouraging word as i begin a new chapter in my life as vice chanceler for the university of alabama. to each and every one of you who have been so generous with your words, thoughts and even a few prayers, i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. a few have even asked if i have any parting words to share, and i won't share with my colleagues, i wouldn't do that for you, but i'd like to the american people. you know, some of the reasons i so rarely come to the house floor and speak is because my father, who died when i was 13, always told myself and my

brother and sister that if you listen to the words of others instead of listening to your own words, you'll learn a lot more. so i've tried to follow my father's advice. the other reason that i so rarely take your time to listen to my thoughts is because of my very first speech on the house floor. and with your indulgence i will cheryl it briefly for you. all of us remembers your first house speech, i'm sure, when you were a new member of congress. mine was unforgettable for a different reason. it was back in early 2003 when the house was debating the healthy forest bill. i remember it as though it were yesterday. like most freshman, i served on several committees and i was in a budget committee when i got a call from the chairman of the ag committee, bob goodlatte, and he said, jo, you need to get over on the house floor because you're getting ready to do your first speech. one person who was here and

will remain anonymous was about to have an amendment that would have stripped the $250,000 provision that i had inserted to do research on insects, on pine beetles that we don't care for in south alabama and throughout the country. d he was going to strip it and take it for a project that was near and dear to him in his district. as i was running over to the capitol i did what you would have done. i called my wife and told her to get the kids in front of the tv set, turn on the v.c.r. and i said to my daughter, leigh, who was 7 at the time and my son, who was 7, daddy is about to make his first speech on the house floor. my staff had given me some beautiful words that day. they were somewhere between the gettysburg address and the kennedy inauguration. but as so often as the case here on the floor, instead of having five or 10 minutes to speak, chairman goodlatte gave me 90 seconds.

so i put aside my prepared remarks and instead i spoke from the heart or from the top of my head. i said, mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from california and to urge support for the underlying bill. i went on to say, if i represented pine beetles i would actually support the gentleman's amendment because if i were a pine beetle i would like it. he would take the money we'd put in there and redirect it to a program out in his district in california. but i don't represent pine beetles. i represent hardworking men and women who own a few acres and they grow pine trees, and pine beetles are a real threat to a healthy forest. you know, if i had only stopped there i would have made a good first impression but like so many first politicians who didn't know when to stop, i said, we have a real problem ith incest in south alabama. i said, in fact, i would

venture a guess, we have more problem with incest in my district in alabama than in any other congressional district in america. chairman goodlatte was going like that. and i thought he was say, preach on, brother, preach on. instead he was urging me to shut up. so i got back to my office thinking i'd delivered one of the best speeches on insects ever made and my staff said, jo, in about two minutes you just reinforced in the minds of all american what is we have a problem with in south alabama. that's the other reason that i don't often speak on the house floor. fortunately for me, these wonderful people who work here taking note of every word knew what i meant to say, not what i did say. this one reason. mr. speaker, you all laughed at that story.

as so many others have over the years. and a little laughter from time to time is good medicine, as the doctor says. perhaps our country needs to laugh a little more often as well. and stop yelling at each other and working closer together. for sure our great country has many daunting challenges facing us. all across our land, there's anger, frustration and concern on both sides of the political spectrum about what's going on or what's not going on. public approval of this body, which we are all so honored to serve in, is at or near an all-time record low. but if i could say one parting word to the american people, it would be this. the men and women that you have elected to represent you in this, the people's house, have different views and positions on the very issues that you have different views and

positions on. and by and large, and with rare exception, these are men and women of courage, of integrity, of decency, and they serve, along with many, many men and women, as staff, who work here, oftentimes in the shadows of the spotlight, they serve for the same reason. a common love of country. make no mistake, sam johnson loved america when he was being brutally beaten and held against his will as a prisoner of war for over seven years in vietnam. often wondering whether he would ever see his family again. and john lewis loved his country when he was beaten and bloodied fighting for the civil rights of all americans as he was crossing the edmund pettus bridge in the city i was born in, selma. just like sam and john, every other member here, democrat,

republican, liberal, conservative, we all work for the american people. with the singular goal of making our country a better, more perfect union, even though metimes as humans we sometimes fail to meet your expectations. this is especially true of our leadership on both sides of the aisle who often have one of the toughest jobs trying to corral the strong will of 435 members of congress who come from all parts of america to try to do the right thing. to my committee chairman and ranking members and all the people i have served work i owe you my debt of gratitude. in closing, i want to express my last expression to the wonderful people of south alabama for giving me the opportunity to work for you for the last 10 1/2 years as your congressman. i came to this job having studied at the feet of two of the most outstanding men i

know, jack edwards and sonny callahan, like me, came to office as a representative from alabama. but they left office as statesmen. and anything that my staff or i have ever been able to do for the people of my district, it's been to build on the legacy of those two great men. lastly, i would like to say this. the people of my district have afforded me a rare honor in alabama as one of only 167 people, men and women, to serve in this body. the rest of us, only 10,000 plus men and women have ever had the privilege of being called a representative of the people. i would be extremely remiss if i didn't say a special thank you to my wife janae, our daughter lee, and my son robbins, who like they were 10 years ago, are back home in alabama, listening to your daddy talk about incest.

thank you for your love and support. may god bless you and may god bless america. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1897 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will port the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 1897 a bill to promote freedom and democracy in vietnam. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? 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 .s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 405, the nays are 3. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended this be-- the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to the house resolution 322, i call up h.r. 2879, the stop vernment abuse act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2879, a bill to provide limitations on bonuses

for federal employees during sequestration to provide for an investigative leave requirement members of the senior executive service, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by executive branch employees with individuals and for other purposes. mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent that august -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 322, the bill is considered read. the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on h. reform 2879 and include extraneous materials thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you. madam speaker, h.r. 2879 the

stop government abuse act, combines three bills that were each voice voted out of my committee, they are h.r. 1541, the commonsense in compensation act, h.r. 2579, the government employee accountability act, and h.r. 2711, the citizen empowerment act. these -- the commonsense in compensation title of these ill -- of this bill brings common sense to the policies of governing employee boe news while providing agencies flex to believe the recognize outstanding performance. madam speaker, 75% of the senior executives will receive bonuses of at least $6,000 while more than 650,000 defense employees are in the midst of 11 furlough days. this sends the wrong message to our federal work force. the men and women of the

federal work force work hard, all of them. some of them do exceptional work in which bonuses are an incentive and recognition. but to see these bonuses come on top of annual salaries ranging 179,000 ,500 to over $ and going in the range of $30,000 or more sends message to many of our federal work force and in fact, madam speaker, most of our federal work force, people at the top get even more. following the president's decision to impose a two-year pay freeze, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal year 2011 and 2012. moreover, this past february the a memo ation issued limiting bonuses to those legally required and in june the

administration suspended rank awards for senior leaders. h.r. 1541 builds on the president's initiatives. the government employee accountability title of the bill helps ensure senior executive service employees are held accountable for their actions while maintaining due process. from jeff neely at g.s.a. to lois lerner at the i.r.s., we have uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government officials engaging in behavior that certainly seems to be contrary to the principles of public service. when people come before the congress and they cannot even answer questions as to what they have done in their official capacity and take the fifth, and then find themselves fully paid for not working, it sends the wrong message to the vast majority of federal workers.

in some cases, these employees could face civil or criminal penalties in the private sect -- penalties. in the private sector these behaviors would be grounds for dismen are air action and likely termination -- discipline air action and likely termination -- discipline -- disciplinary action and likely termination. but that's not what happens. they get full pay, full benefits and accruing additional retirement. this bill provides agencies with additional tools to use when senior managers behave badly. it does not require these tools be used, but it makes them available. a similar version of this bill was passed by the house by a vote of 402-2 in the last congress. the final title of the bill before us today consists of the text of house resolution 2711, the citizens empowerment act, as reported from my committee. this legislation protects

individual citizens from harassment, intimidation and inappropriate behavior by a few federal officials representing agencies such as the i.r.s., e.p.a., the s.e.c.. unfortunately these few bad actors at agencies have from time to time threatened, intimidated, coerced or lied or violated the public trust. and yet in 12 out of our 50 states, citizens are not empowered to unilaterally record these conversations for their own protection. in 38 they may. we simply seek in this bill to harmonize across the government a predictability. when these intimidations and wrong behavior happens, we need to make sure there is a simple solution that every american can avail them self of. this bill ensures individuals have a right to record in opinion person meetings, and

telephone calls with federal employees, including regulatory officials engaged in enforcement activities that can lead to the imposition of fines and penalties. in essence this bill does -- excuse me, in essence, what this bill does is provide consistent -- consistency on behalf of the federal employees acting in their official capacity. i want to make that very clear, madam speaker. federal employees today don't have an easy answer. in some states, 38 of them, they can be recorded. in one state they may be recorded. and in 11 states they are likely not to be recorded because in fact it requires their advanced permission. uniformity across the federal work force is a good thing. and we believe that it also will tell every member to treat people the same, whether they live in a state where they may be recorded or not. i encourage all members to support these three bills and

remind all that these paths -- that these passed on a voice vote in the committee and were not considered controversial in the previous congress. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2879 and to the failure of this house to address the issue of real concern to the american people and the people in my district. congress has been in session now for more than 200 days and yet we have not passed a single bill, not one, to create a single job. the government must be funded by october 1, yet house republicans have refused to appoint conferees to resolve a budget resolution after repeatedly calling for regular order. after bringing to the floor a farm bill that gutted the snap

program on which tens of millions of hungry americans depend, including 17 million children, the majority brought a transportation, h.u.d. bill together, that would gut the home program, amtrak and the effort to modernize our nation's air traffic control system. it became clear this week, however, that the majority did not have the votes to pass it. we could be working today to end the damaging cuts imposed by the ryan budget which the republican chairman of the appropriations committee called unrealistic and ill conceived. that's the republican chairman of the appropriations committee. instead, -- instead of working on any of these issues, we're wasting the last days remaining before a five-week recess on a measure that threatens to impede

our nation's law enforcement efforts and continues senseless attacks on our nation's civil servants. h.r. 2879, the bill before us now, was thrown together last night from the ruins of three bills the majority did not have the votes to pass yesterday. the rules committee had to call an emergency meeting last night to push this bill through and no amendments are being allowed. so what would this legislation do? first and foremost, it would undermine our nation's law enforcement activities. in fact, this bill should more appropriately be called ignoring the concerns of law enforcement act. it would allow individuals to record telephone calls and in opinion person conversations -- in-person conversations with fedel employees, including federal law enforcement agents,

without their knowledge. the federal law enforcement officers association, the national association of assistant united states attorneys and the federal bureau of investigation agents association have all written letters opposing these provisions. the federal law enforcement officers association wrote, and i quote, this legislation pull enforcementputs law activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals, end of quote. the federal bureau of investigation agents association wrote, and i quote, this proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement and would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism investigations.

and this morning, after listening to the debate we had here on this floor yesterday, and after this bill was filed last night, the national association of assistant united states attorneys sent a letter to every member of the house opposing the bill. their letter states, and i quote, section 301 of h.r. 2879 will undermine federal, civil enforcement activities and criminal prosecutions during the investigative, pretrial, trial and enforcement phases of litigation involving the interests of the united states, end of quote. the fact is that we have held no hearings on this legislation before we marked it up in committee last week. we had no testimony from law enforcement officials about their concerns with the bill. an rushed it to the floor without adequate consideration.

in fact, in their rush to bring this bill to the floor, committee republicans did not even contact key law enforcement agencies to make sure this bill would not harm ongoing investigations. this morning i directed my staff to contact the department of justice, the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security, including his operational components. officials from all of these entities have now reported that they have significant operational concerns with the bill. does that matter to the supporters of this bill? don't you think it makes sense to hear from key stakeholders before changing federal law in this extreme way? the bill also would interfere with existing state laws prescribing the conditions under which conversations can be recorded.

36 years ago, my home state of maryland enacted a law that made it a felony to record a private conversation unless every party to the conversation consents to the recording or another exception applies. maryland statute requires actual consent. not forced or assumed consent. the bill negates these protections and the protections of 11 other states by deeming federal employees, including all law enforcement personnel, to have consented to the recording of their official conversations just by coming to work. the bill has several other troubling provisions. it would remove due process protections from members of our senior executive service by giving politically appointed agency heads broad discretion to fire these employees without providing advanced notice, without conducting a proper investigation and without giving

employees an opportunity to respond to accusations against them. under this bill employees could be fired and then forced to prove their innocence to seek reinstatement. this turns on its head the most basic protection guaranteed to all americans by our constitution, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. i urge members to reject this senseless, ill-considered legislation that would impede law enforcement activities and eliminate constitutional protections for civil servants. i urge members to vote no on .r. 27 -- on h.r. 2879 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: you know, this probably is groundhog day because these were the same statements made yesterday by the ranking member from maryland who

implied that somehow what happens in 38 states would be draconian if it happened in 12 more. with that i'd ask that the gentlelady from missouri be recognized for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. we have seen too many examples of our nation's bureaucracy making life harder for americans and their families. every weekend when i return to kansas i hear story after story of federal regulators abusing their power, that far too often many of these people are afraid to tell their stories in public because they fear retribution. what country do we live in where americans are afraid to tell the truth because they fear what

their government might do to them? the recent revelations that i.r.s. officials targeted conservative organizations has shown -- shone light on the power that federal bureaucrats from different agencies have over matters both large and small. when these officials abuse their power and waste taxpayer dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, trust is lost nd the rule of law is betrayed. the most troubling part is, when americans are confronted by agency officials, they have few rights and insufficient resources to protect themselves. not only do federal agencies get to write rules they get to enforce them, too. a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by a federal agency than an actual court and citizens have fewer rights in

agency proceedings than in a courtroom. i introduced the stop government abuse right to allow citizens to protect themselveses or their small businesses when a government official comes calling. among other things, this bill gives americans a new tool to fight back by allowing them to record any conversation with most federal agencies and finally have proof of what happens in these interactions. is it any wonder why americans have lost faith and trust in our government when the feds have allowed the i.r.s. to target americans based on their personal beliefs, allowed the federal general services administration, regional commissioner jack neely, to spend nearly $900,000 of taxpayer money on a conference in las vegas and then receive a bonus after being placed under investigation and they have allowed high ranking

bureaucrats like lois lerner to still be on the government's payroll funded by taxpayers. the stunning lack of accountability and transparency in our current system is unacceptable and the stop government abuse act is a good first step to help level the playing field between the average american and federal regulators. the vast majority of federal workers are good, patriotic people but that doesn't mean that an additional check and balance can't help this bill does not vill anize federal employees and as long as they're doing their job properly, they have not a thing to worry about. unfortunately, with all the recent scandals, we have heard about far too many federal employees who have had the luxury of playing by different rules than the rest of the hardworking men and women in this country. this must end. and the stop government abuse act helps do just that.

parts of this legislation already passed the house last year after news broke of the g.s.a. scandal but the senate never acted on the legislation. it's time to do something about this and today i demand action. -- i demand action be taken. while americans are toiling across this country in factories, on farms and elsewhere to make ends meet, lois lerner is collecting her full paycheck. would allow d -- agencies to fire reckless employees on the spot and stop those under investigation from receiving salaries paid for by the very taxpayers they abused. it's time to stand up against big government overreach and abuse. americans deserve a government that expands their rights, not the rights of big government. enact -- enacting the stop government abuse act will help restore trust in our government and get big government out of the way of our economy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve.

the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for the wise words of his opening statement and i thank him for retrieving the views of law enforcement officials, since we had no hearing on this bill, they were very informative. with most of the business of the nation languishing with no action in this house, republicans have rushed to the floor with the so-called messaging bills. let's make sure we get the message. republicans, the party that champions states rights, wants to preempt the states to require federal employees acting for the government to record conversations with clients. republicans, the party that wants the federal government operate like the private sector and pay people on the basis of

merit wants to deny bonuses to federal employees who deserve them, regardless of merit. perhaps worst of all, madam speaker, republicans who spent most of this term accusing i.r.s. employees of denying due process to republican organizations now propose to without s. employees due process and get this -- the republican version of due process is -- process is to give the employee the right to apply for reinstatement to the political appointee who fired him. then after the fact, having never had a hearing, the dismissed employee now appeal to the mspb. this last one, of course,

reverses the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty but is much worse. not only is there no due process, there's no process at all. you're fired. that one is embarrassingly unconstitutional. these are messaging bills all right, madam speaker, and we get the message. republican principles apply, except when they don't. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i want to speak a little bit from the heart. we've heard a lot of debate going back and forth about how we haven't talked about this,

how we haven't debated it but there's been a number of amendments and as this bill comes to the floor today, what it's about is about fairness. mr. meadows: it's about fairness to employees, it's about fairness to those who manage. what we're seing is that there is a trend where we're not being fair with bonuses. i've had my colleagues opposite here talk about the fact that, you know, we need to continue to incentivize but when 75% of senior executive employees receive bonuses at an average of $11,000, it's out of control. this little chart shows that the veterans administration, 74% of those employees received bonuses of over $11,000 apiece. now why is this a problem? because back in my district, the veterans are having to wait over 600 days, madam speaker,

600 days to get a determination on benefits, yet we continue to give bonuses. i find that appalling. the other part of that is, you know, as small businesses, we say we are for small businesses and small businesses are hurting. what do we do at the small business administration? 92% of those employees are getting over $13,000 a year in bonuses. it's appalling. madam speaker. we need to make sure that we bring it back. we've got mr. spock there that was part of the "star trek" parody that received a bonus of almost $31,000, the same year that he spent over $5 million on a conference. where is the sanity? when we really talk about federal employees, the rank and file, the blue collar federal employees are going with pay freezes while we pay out

ridiculous bonuses. madam speaker, i think it's time that we really turn back the tide. you know, if the democrats are going to vote against this particular bill, the headline tomorrow should read that the democrats have embraced the one percenters because that's what it is. it's 1% getting all the bonuses while the rest of the federal workers are not doing and not receiving the benefits they deserve. it is time to -- it is time that we bring sanity to this situationism strongly urge support of this bill. i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the credit for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to

h.r. 2879, the so-called stop government abuse act this legislation is simply a rehash of the three attacks on federal workers that were incorporated in the bills that the republican leadership abruptly pulled from the suspension calendar yesterday due to a lack of support from the required 2/3 majority of this house. the fact that these anti-federal worker suspension bills have now been reconstituted into a single anti-federal worker bill does not make this legislation any less misguided or any less harmful to our federal workers than it was yesterday. after all, h.r. 2879 is based on the same message that has been continually reflected in a series of republican legislative attacks on our federal workers throughout this congress. and that message from the republican leadership has been that -- that our hardworking federal employees can't be

trusted and they are the primary source of our deficit burden. on the heels of repeated attempts to freeze federal employees' pay beyond the current three years, efforts to increase federal pension contributions and slash our federal work force across the boarding we are considering legislation that would only add insult to injury by depriving federal employees of their constitutional rights to due process of law. in particular, i'm deeply concerned about the expedited termination provisions in 2789. these provisions would give agency heads broad discretion without limitation to immediately fire senior executives accused of misconduct without notifying the employees of the charges against them and without giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. instead, it places the burden on the employee after they fire them to prove that their reinstatement is required. this ready-fire-aim approach by

my republican colleagues, where they fire first, fire the employee first and ask questions later, flies in the face of the rights guaranteed to all americans under our constitution. this guilty until proven -- the guilty until proven innocent framework violates due process protections envisioned by james madison and guarantee under the constitution. in lattimore vs. cleveland held that -- the united states supreme court held that federal employees who are facing discipline are entitled to certain due process rights. the u.s. supreme court held that public servants had a property right in the jobs they held and in continued employment and such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given a meaningful opportunity to have notice of the allegations against them, to have a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond against

charges against them. notably that must aokur prior to being deprived of their right to employment. the court stated, and i quote, an essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, and property be proceed -- preceded by a notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. the court goes on further and says this principle requires some sort of hearing prior to discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. now the one saving grace in this bill, this is unconstitutional. this provision is flatly unconstitutional and there's a long line of federal cases under the supreme court that declares it so. the one saving grace in my opinion in this bill, there's no severability clause and after this provision is truck down by the supreme court, these employees will all be reinstated with back pay and

the whole bill that they're offering will be struck down because of the lack of a severability clause in the bill. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. lynch: but this nation was fun odd -- founded on the principle that every person is entitled to due process. ey understood the problem of depriving a person of their livelihood. due process demands we oppose h.r. 2789 and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this legislation. i thank the ranking member for his advocacy and courtesy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: the gentleman is entitled to his opinion but not his facts. in the p bill itself, which i read yesterday, it says an employee removed under this section shall be notified of

the reasons for such removal within 30 days. with that, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i rise today to explain a little bit about what's going on. the other day we talked about the dizzyingesques of being on this floor and somehow things get twisted around, we see people bumping off the walls because of the spin. let me tell you what we're talking about here today. we passed the capitol police and the people on the dais and you would think we're talking about every single person who works for the government. the truth of the matter is, there are over 2.1 million people working for the government. that doesn't include the army or the post office, that

includes -- the people that we're talking about that we want to hold accountable and what an unusual, what an unusual effort for congress to try to hold people accountable, why in the world would you do that? half of us wouldn't be back here so we're talking about 4%. as the president is fond of saying, just do the arithmetic. it isn't everybody you talked about. it isn't all the folks sitting here tonight. it's not the capitol police that we walk by. it's not the people that clean our offices every night. it's none of those folks. it's the senior executives. now, these poor people who are going to be under such great duress by this that they're probably going to get their resumes together and that whoosh you hear is them running away from their $195,000 jobs. are you kidding me? how are we ever going to keep qualified people here? i got to tell you something, i got a lot of unemployed people back in pennsylvania that will

line up for these jobs. now, the $199,000 of course is the top of it but the real kicker is they can't go over $230,000 with their bonuses. now, these are people that are going to walk away from these jobs because we have the unmitigated gall to hold them accountable to the people who pay those wages and that's the american taxpayers. that's who we're talking about. my goodness, have we fall than far away from what this country was supposed to be? now, here's all we're saying to them, and we came about this because in a hearing in the g.s.a. we asked about, why is mr. neely on leave with pay? g.s.a. eople at the said, you don't understand, congressman, we don't have any mechanism to put them on leave without pay. i've never heard anything like that. of course i haven't heard it because i come from the private sector. we don't do that in the private sector. what i did find out was they would love to have that. the people we put in charge of actually love to be able to hold those

that work for them accountable. and responsible. so what did we give them? them the ability to do that. now, they can fire somebody on the spot but we didn't do anything about the due process. that person is still entitled to come back. we can create an investigation on a leave without pay, but we also require that the agencies report to congress every 45 days to let us know where the investigation is. my goodness, there's nothing harder in this body than trying to get information when there's an investigation under way. and i just think that we've seen that the last couple of months. you want to get the information, well, we can't talk about it now because there's an investigation going on. doesn't make sense to me, doesn't make sense to the people that i represent. now, when we talk about protecting american workers and we talk about what our duty is here, we were elected by a group of people from districts all over this country to come and represent them.

according to the i.r.s., there's 145 million americans who pay taxes. they file their taxes every year. there's 300 million out there, but 145 million pay taxes. that's who it is that we're trying to protect. they're the ones that pay for every single thing that happens here. or they co-sign the note on the loan to keep this place floating. so i want to you look at this. now, there's total federal employees, 2.1 million. this little red sliver, and you really -- it's hard to see, .004%.r, this represents as the president would say, it's all about the arithmetic. it's all about the arithmetic. and i would say to my colleagues on both sides, it's all about the people we represent. so, i appreciate the spin, i appreciate the fact that you'd like t policeman think that he's unappreciated or she's

unappreciated and everyone who works in our office is unappreciated and everybody from the private sector that works for this great nation is unappreciated. but you know it's not true. and you know what you're say something not true. but what i love to see is for to you stand up on this floor and look at people and say, this is what's going on and you know it's not true. you absolutely know it's not true but you say it anyway. and why? because it wears well. i'm going to yield back, mr. chairman, but thank you so much. and thanks for bringing this legislation up and thank you for protecting the american taxpayer. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded that they are to address their remarks to the . air and not to other members the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: may i quine -- may i inquire as to how much time we have? both sides, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 15 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. cummings: before i yield to mr. connolly, let me just say

this, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the lauderville case, the supreme court, which mr. lynch cited, says that the employee must be given notice before they're fired and an opportunity to respond. this bill basically -- you're fired and then you appeal, trying to get your job back. so you don't really truly have notice. and so, as pursuant to that case . i grant to mr. connolly of virginia three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank my friend from maryland. you know, the distinguished manager on the other side of this bill says you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. in taking to task my friend from massachusetts, mr. lynch, in th

and i've got the bill in front of me and it says that at least 30 days advance written notice stating specific reasons for the proposed action, that is to say the removal or suspension of an employee, unless there's a reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime or the agency determines it's prescribed in regulation that the employee's conduct with respect to an action covered by proposed flagrant and misconduct and then you can be removed. without that notice. mr. lynch was right. facts are stubborn things. if we really wanted to understand the motivation behind the legislation in front of us, political ploy before this congress goes out on recess to allow one whole party and its members to go home and avoid discussing the tough issues of the day and make the federal employee the boogeyman.

that federal employee, whoever he or she is, they -- vaguely abuses you and you need to be protected against them. and so we're going to pass a bunch of bills that had no hearings, that are flawed in their drafting, that had to be removed from the floor yesterday and redrafted in order to come back today to qualify for a vote, because they otherwise wouldn't have passed on a suspension rule, and it is all part of this consistent and flagrant and in my opinion reckless mpaign to -- campaign to demonize the public servants who serve us. and the loser ultimately in this game, this political game, will be the constituents they serve and we're supposed to serve. it is not right to demonize federal employees. and we've done that. weefpk cut their pay, -- we've cut their pay, we've frozen their pay for three years, we've raided their pensions to try to

finance things that have no relationship whatsoever to federal employment per se. and we've characterized them in disparaging and negative ways that are not worthy of this body. so it's all right. go home, campaign against the federal employee and maybe you'll make some headway. maybe in fact it's a brilliant move short term, in short-term political gain. it's in expense of the truth and men and women who serve this country ably every day and who deserve better from their elected representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: madam speaker, i wonder if the gentleman from kept this uld have person on for how long, weeks, months, more than a year?

this individual received a bonus after more than a year. when this bill came through our committee, the amendment to say in all cases 30 days could have been offered. it wasn't. in regular order of the committee, the language was published, there was every opportunity. and when the gentleman from virginia said redrafted, with all due respect, not a word was changed in any of these three bills from the time it left our committee until today when it's being considered. with that i would yield -- mr. connolly: madam speaker -- mr. issa: with that i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from california. federal agencies not only get to write rules, they get to enforce them. it was recently noted that a citizen is 10 times more likel y an actual court.

mr. bentvolio: in any given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000. 939,000. in these agency proceedings, citizens have fewer rights than in a courtroom. and unfortunately there are some d actors who intimidate or even lie, violating public trust and potentially breaking laws. far too often the public is left without evidence to help prove federal employees mistreated them. for example, the s.e.c. bowing to political pressure to scrutinize donations to tax-exempt groups, i.r.s. employees targeting tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status, and other agencies that are writing and enforcing rules

and regulations written in legalese to confuse and frustrate the public. title 3 of this bill ensures that individuals have the right to record their meetings and telephone exchanges with federal regulatory officials engaged in enforcement activities. the managers amendment adopted in committee ensures that law enforcement would not be impacted adversely. undercover investigations and wiretap surveillance would not be interfered with. this legislation does not supersede any state laws and it has no impact on citizen interactions with nonfederal officials such as state and local police officers. madam speaker, it is the duty of congress to protect right, not take them away. this legislation is just another step in protecting the rights of our citizens and i yield back. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, you know, the distinguished chairman of this committee throws a picture up on the floor and of course doesn't allow me to respond. when he demands -- when he demands, is this what the gentleman from virginia is talking about? it is wrong for the chairman of the distinguished committee to suggest or allow the inference to be drawn that somehow that picture represent it's all federal employees and the gentleman who just spoke, talking about rights, what about the rights of the employees who serve our country? what about their rights that are being trampled on in this legislation? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i would reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i was not going to speak, i was constrained to speak, to come to the floor, when we had this chart, about 2 million -- about two million federal employees. but only adversely affecting just a small sliver. the premise seems to be you can undermine as long as they're a -- the nority, the ryes rights of people. and those capitol policemen of which the gentleman spoke, and the people of the desk of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve in our committees of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve as nurses, not necessarily in v.a. hospitals because they're exempt, zero cola, four years in a low. all two million have been affected. every new employee has been affected. everyone. not just that small little sliver that apparently the -- they don't get rights.

1.98 million, that's a different story, but as long as the only a small sliver, undermine their rights. i came to the floor to say that if we undermine the rights of one, frankly the rights of all are soon at risk. we have learned that throughout history. so i would hope that we would reject this bill which was seven or eight bills to start out with , put up here on a way that you could not amend them, suspension , in this transparent, open, let the house work its will process and we now come back with a closed rule. putting all the bills in one. putting the rule covering all