rule of laws and members of congress believe that laws that we pass no longer matter, they're going to say that their belief in the american system comes under question. when we allow the president to single handedly determine what the law is, the constitution, separation of powers and the american people become irrelevant. that is why the president's system of unilateral governance cannot stand. it must be stopped. and even if it takes a lawsuit to do so, that's what we think the federal judiciary is there to do, to resolve differences based upon the law. if the president's goal was to goat the house and defend the constution, he has succeeded when he said why not sue me. our constitution should be defended and must be understood and guaranteed. this resolution is an important step in doing that.

i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. with that, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: purr superintendent to house resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on the resolution as amended. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 225, the nays are 201. resolution is adopted and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the able.

for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa -- from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 935. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 694, i call up bill h.r. 935, to amend the federal insecticide, f, ngicide act, to clarify congressional intent, regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 346, h.r. 935, a bill to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide act and the federal water pollution control act to

clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pest sidse in or near nave -- pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask all members to take their conversations from the floor, all members and staff to take their seats. the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, i yield high such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 935, the reducing regulatory burdens act of 2013. the reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure politics. in the last congress this bill, then it was h.r. 872, was introduced on a bipartisan basis with overwhelming bipartisan support and passed under suspension calendar with 2/3 of this body in support of it. this congress, h.r. 935, the

exact same bill was again introduced on a bipartisan basis with bipartisan support and was voice voted out of the transportation and agricultural committees. however, earlier this week partisanship reared its lug ugly head and members who are on record voting in support of this legislation or agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes from yes to no in order for it not to be agreed on by 2/3 of this body. this is a -- this is partisanship at its uglyist. the principles and policies of this administration have not changed over the last few years. instead the politics of it did. i introduced 935 to clarify congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. it is the federal insecticide, fungicide and roticide act and not the clean water act which has long been the federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the united states, in fact, fifra has regulated pestside

use before the enact of the clean water act. however, who are recently, result of the number of lawsuits, the clean water act has been added as a new and redundant layer of federal regulation over the use of pesticides. i will not repeat the history i gave on monday's debate of how e.p.a. came to compose this unnecessary second layer of federal regulation. but i think it's important for everyone to realize that this regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties and homeowners. federal and state agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain clean water act permitting programs governing pesticide applications on a wide range of public and private pesticide users and now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process. this is adding another layer to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates being imposed on the regulated community. despite what some would have

you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection. the cost of complying with the permit regulations and fears of are forcing bility mosquito control and other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect the resources to comply with the regulatory requirements. this may be having adverse -- this may be having an adverse effect on public health. in many states routine preventive programs have been redulesed due to requirements. this most likely impacted and increased the record keeping outbreaks of the west nile virus around the nation in 2012. h.r. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito and other pest control programs in the future. h.r. 935 exempts from the permitting process a discharge of waters involving the application of pesticides authorized for sale, distribution or use under fifra, where the pesticide use for the intended purposes and is used in compliance with

pesticide label requirements. this is appropriate because pesticide registration and enforcement programs under fifra takes into account environmental and human risk just like the clean water act does. h.r. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the united states e.p.a. to return pesticide regulation to where it was before the court got involved. it lists fifr as the appropriate and adequate regulating statute. well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stake holders have signed a letter supporting legislative resolution of this issue. i'll insert the letter into the record. just to name a few of these organizations, they include the american mosquito control association, the national association of state departments of agriculture, the national water resources association, the american farm bureau fet ration, the national farmers uniform, farm family alliance, the national rural

electric cooperative association, crop life america, and responsible industry for a sound environment. in addition, i will submit for the record a letter to the national alliance of forest owners who have expressed support for h.r. 935. private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres of private forest land in 47 states, supporting 2.4 million jobs. and finally, i will submit for the record a letter of support, plus a rebuttal paper prepared by the american mosquito control association that rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several members on the house floor monday evening. thanks good bill that reduces burdensome regulation without rolling back any environmental safeguards. don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to comply with the current clean water act regulation of pesticides. ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your cities and counties. and then look at your state's website to see what it takes to apply for a permit for

pesticide applications. we did that. it cost over $200 in my state of ohio, in oregon it's over $900. and that does not count the time of an applicant to complete the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application. all to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under fifra. i urge all members to support this bipartisan bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. mr. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 935 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. in the 11th congress, the republican leadership -- 112th congress, the republican leadership moved similar legislation under the guys that unless we acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public-related health activities. some would say this may be a

ly to high person describe the impacts of the environmental protection -- hyperboles. however, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the agency's draft permit went into effect, with the almost nonexistent level of concern expressed after almost three years of implementation, you would likely question why we're here this evening debating this bill. contrary to the rhetoric, e.p.a. and the states have successfully drafted and implemented new pesticide general permits, p.g.p., for the last 2 1/2 years it adopted several commonsense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. and they do so in a way that allows pesticide am katers to meet their vie -- am katers to meet their vital ed -- apply ters to meet their vital missions. there have been two successful growing seasons and public health officials successfully addressed multiple threats of

mosquito-borne illness while at the same time complying with this sensible requirements of both the clean water act and the federal insect side, fungicide and rodent side act, fifra. i say sensible because as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the clean water act and fifra are very different. fifra is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale. preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. through uniform labels indicating restrictions, very sensible. however, the clean water act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the nation's waters. with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality, two very distinct purposes. it's simply incorrect to say that applying a fifra-approved pesticide in accordance with labeling requirements is the surrogate for protecting local water quality. as any farmer knows, complying

with f, ifra is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. farmers do not need to look at the localized impact of the pesticide on local water quality. so why are groups ranging from the american farm bureau federation to crop life america so adamantly opposed to this regulation? well, let's explore that. one plausible answer is because these groups do not want to come out of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to discharge unknown pesticides in unknown quantities with unknown mixtures and at unknown locations. i wonder how many american -- how the american people would react to the fact that for decades pesticide sprayers -- sprayers could put massive amounts of potentially harmful materials almost completely below the radar. prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were purchased from

commercial dealers of pesticides. no comprehensive information was available or required on the quantities, types or location of pesticides supplied in this country. and based on that practice, i guess we should not be surprised that for decades pesticides have been detected in the majority of our nation's surface and groundwaters. which lead nose a question of how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the environment. all this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our nation's rivers, lakes and streams, and make accountability for these discharges even more difficult. if this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides and those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world. now, during the debate on this past monday, several speakers

questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the clean water act for the application of pesticides. however, many of these benefits are so obvious that it's not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked. mr. speaker, first it is the clean water act and not fifra that requires pesticide applicators to manage discharges through measures such as integrated pest management. i find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of pesticides for certain applications would be a problem. second, it is the clean water act, not fifra, that requires pesticide am caters to monitor for and report any adverse indense -- incidents that result from spraying. i would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would actually be a mutually agreed upon benefit. also, it is the clean water act and not fifra that requires

see ide applikaters to how many pesticides are being provided throughout the nation. if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by pesticides, i would think the public would want to quickly identify the likely source of the pesticide that's causing the impairment. despite repeated re quirmentse to the e.p.a. where the current clean water act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicantor from .erforming their services and let me summarize, the clean

water act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate time and pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment. number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has imposed no impedement n plaketors to provide their public health communities. most politicses are covered by the pesticide general permit either by no action by filing of an electronic notice of intent. and three, federal and state data make clear that application of pesticides in compliance with fifra alone was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the nation from being

contaminated from pesticides. if we care about water quality, more is neeted to be done. i can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that existed prior to the issuance of clean water act pesticide general permit. it has caused no known regulatory, administrative or significant financial burden and has been implemented seamlessly across the country. as was stated during the debate on monday, this legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does not exist. i urge a no vote on h.r. 935. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. >> as a farmer, i take a little bit offense to some of the remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.

mr. gibbs: pesticides cost money and as farmers we do not control what we get for our products. it's our commodities and raising corn and soy beans and we are at the mercy of the commodities market and we aren't going to waste input costs. so that's just a wrong statement that is not true. farmers today are professionals, high capital cost operations and makes no sense that we would waste those inputs. on the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning there are pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the environment and essentially a bank of residue left and you get those legacy issues. the pesticides we are using

today are much safer and the technology has improved and a lot of these pesticides are more biodegradeable. fifra approves the label and that is the approval of the process and application and the amount that can be used. and most states, if not all states, most of these pesticides have to be applied by certified applicators and they are licensed and filling out paperwork and have to do due diligence. this bill adds to duplication. we went to a couple of states and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body or wetland and that's open for definition of how close that may be, you have to go online and apply for the permit and some states you have to apply for a -- you have to submit a management plan and list where you are going to be applying the

pesticide, the location. so basically -- let's take it down to home owner level. if they want to spray their yard and maybe close to a water body, that's open for discussion, they have to go online and in oregon they have to submit a management plan. in my state of ohio, over $200. that's a little bizarre as long as they are playing it to the label under e.p.a. approval. so let's talk about mosquito control districts. we had a huge outbreak of west nile virus in 2012. last year wasn't as much. his year, the debate is out on

ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> i thank the gentlelady. i rise today to support h.r. 935, the regulatory re-- reducing regulatory burdens act. which will relieve farmers, foresters and other pest cried applicators from potentially costly regulatory burden that would do anything if little to protect the environment. legislation simply makes clear congressional intent by amending both the clean water act and the federal insecticide, fungicide and

rodenticide act, fifra, to prohibit permits for pest cried applications when pericides are applied consistent with fifra. this is consistent with a ruling which exempted permitting of certain pesticide applications under the clean water act. the court's decision preempts fifra for the first time in the history of either statute. clean water act permitting requirements placed a significant burden and responsibility on the states and the e.p.a. these national pollution discharge elimination system permits do not reduce the amount of pesticides being used or bring about additional water monitoring. mr. peterson: i know many of my colleagues share my concern about the regulations coming from the e.p.a. and frankly the last thing we need to do, that we need the e.p.a. to do, or the lawyers or the judges who don't understand agriculture, is having them tell farmers how

to farm or add another meaningless paperwork exercise to their work load. the courts are not the place to make agriculture policy and this legislation takes a step to address that. additionally, this bill is identical to legislation passed by the house last congress with strong and broad bipartisan support. so i urge my colleagues to show that same support today and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. gibbs: at this time i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from oklahoma, the chairman of the ag committee, mr. lucas, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oklahoma will control the time. the gentleman's recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation

and once again ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, this legislation was the product of a collaborative work done by two house committees, along with technical assistance from the obama administration's environmental protection agency . this is the way legislation should be handled. and i am proud of our efforts in the house. to refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the sixth circuit court of appeals. this decision invalidated a 2006 e.p.a. regulation exempting pesticide regulations that are in compliance with the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the clean water act. i want to be clear. our pesticides are viglouisly tested by the e.p.a. -- vigorously tested by the e.p.a. to be used over, near and in

water without causing adverse effects to the environment. when used according to the label, the e.p.a. has built a significant margin of safety. communities without established mosquito control districts are being deprived the economic and health benefits of mosquito control. historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying services with the understanding that if they followed the fifra label they would be in compliance with the law. now, these local applicators , st apply for an npdes permit create a pesticide discharge management plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides and wait for approval from the state or e.p.a. in most states, the permits are not free. the steep fines under the clean water act and the cumbersome administrative process have caused local applicators to

discontinue mosquito control services. the effort to have these same products today doubly regulated through the clean water act permitting process, is unnecessary, costly and ultimately undermines public health. it amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costses for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy. think about that. doubles their legal jeopardy. i encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. and, mr. speaker, if i could i would like to yield to the gentleman from arkansas for debate purposes one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman of the ag committee and i certainly appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee on waterways for his leadership and i rise today? support of h.r. 935. mr. speaker, last thing we need in agriculture right now is more regulation. pesticides are and have been an

integral part of ensuring that our nation continues to produce the world's most abundant, safe and affordable food supply and it stands today pesticides already go through a minimum of 125 safety tests before being registered for use. mr. griffith: on top of that, they're -- mr. griffin: on top of that, they have safety requirements. pass and of h.r. 935 will clarify congressional intent that clean water permits are not required for lawful pesticide applications and protect pesticide users from abusive lawsuits. mr. speaker, i appreciate this time and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma eserves. mr. lucas: i would yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

speaker. this coult matly expand the e.p.a.'s reach further into every part of our country. federal law already requires the e.p.a. to ensure that pesticides cause no unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. labels attached to the pesticides that are crafted 911 mize such impacts. the label is the law today. when a person does not follow the label, regardless of additional permits, they are violating the law. states continue to spend more and more money and man hours implementing and enforcing a water permit process that most regulators do not believe does anything to further protect water quality. that is why h.r. 935 is so important. this bill removes a pointless pay-for exercise in burden through npeds permits that do nothing but create additional

hurdles between consumers and benefits like pesticides provide. registration and labeling of pesticides already does as much as any additional permit would require. in fact, e.p.a.'s own analysis suggests that the permits programmed for pesticides is the single greatest expansion in the program's history, covering over 5 1/2 million pesticide applications per year by 365,000 applicators. if h.r. 935 is not implemented, the effect of the e.p.a.'s overregulation will be felt across the state of georgia. for example, county officials will have one more hurdle to overcome when trying to control the mosquito population and the outbreak of the west nile disease. these counties are forced to address an additional bureaucratic hurdle before they're able to address a serious health threat to our citizens. a lurdle that provides no additional benefits. with this unprecedented expansion, all stake holds are affected, including state agencies, cities, counties,

municipalities, and every american will pay for this. last congress we passed this same legislation, 292-130, and i ask congress to again do the same thing. with that i remain -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. just want to clear up a couple of points here. just for the record, 45 states actually managed their own pesticide programs. so it's not the responsibility of the federal government or the e.p.a. and in fact small applicators, contrary to what we've heard here tonight, mr. speaker, small applicators are already covered. they don't need to do anything. they are covered already under the permitting process. and then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45 -- in those 45 states, a state like idaho, for example, currently has 122 active permits and there's been

no charge for that permit fee. it's free. from the federal government. and that's true for actually a number of states. now, we've heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations would have, but in fact almost three years now there's been no drama. the process has worked well. confusing the difference -- confusing the fifra process and the purposes of the clean water act i think in some ways is what brings us here today. as i said earlier, they are very distinct and in fact just because we need to cover applying pesticides and controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't be a solve us of the responsibility also to make serve that our water bodies are

clean. there's another myth actually that's been put forward here and we've heard and that is that maintaining the clean water act would subject pesticide am katers to litigation -- applicators to litigation and increased citizen suits. in fact, this is false. if a pesticide applicator abides by the terms of the clean water act, the pesticide general permit, which apply misaccordance with the fifra label, and minimizes the use of the pesticide and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts, they are by the terms of the clean water act immune from lawsuits by any party. another myth that we've heard here is that the -- and we just heard -- is that the permitting process, mr. speaker, the fifra requirements and the clean water act are duplicative. as i've said earlier, the fifra addresses the safety and effectiveness on a national

scale, presenting unreasonable adverse impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. in contrast, the clean water act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies with direct considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. so, measuring the human health and environment through uniform labeling and protecting the waters. two separate purposes. another myth that we've heard here is that most of the pesticides that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides, that are no longer used domestically. there is no evidence of pesticide contamination by currently used pesticides. this is absolutely false. although the u.s. geological survey did publish a report in 2006 that documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the

usgf, including pesticides such as d.d.t., that were previously banned as recently as 2014. the usgs has published studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams, in high corn and soybean regions of the united states. so we've heard a lot of mythology here, but it's important for congress to deal in reality. and so i just want to clear those things for the record and inquire of the gentleman if he has additional speakers because am prepared to close. mr. lucas: i do indeed have one additional speaker and then i will yield back to my friend from ohio who will close. ms. edwards: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i yield to the

gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, 4 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida voice -- is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the legislation and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. this evening we are once again considering h.r. 935, the reducing regulatory burden act. many of you are -- will remember the house voted in support of this legislation three years ago. that bill, h.r. 872, passed the house floor on suspension with a vote of 292-130. this same language was included in the 2012 farm bill that reported out of the agricultural committee, as well as the 2013 farm bill which the house sent to the farm bill conference. it was concluded in the committee report to exit the fiscal year 2012 interior environmental appropriations bill. unfortunately due to the opposition from a couple of our friends in the senate, we have been unable to get this bill to the president's desk, which we know once done will guarantee his signature. as many of you may recall, this

language was drafted at our request for effectcal assistance by the e.p.a. -- for technical assistance by the e.p.a. for general counsel. the problem we asked the e.p.a. to help resolve stems from an uninformed court decision you heard mentioned here in the sixth circuit. this decision nullified a 2006 e.p.a. regulation that exempted certain pesticides from having to comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the clean water act. and my colleague, the gentlewoman from maryland, gave a very nice speech and she mentioned several times pot tension problem -- the potential problem, the protension problem of contaminating creeks, the potential problems of this pesticide causing all these problems that we haven't seen. we don't have the facts on that. and to regulate something that is already regulated -- and i must caution everybody how these drugs and how these pesticides come out. they go through extensive

testing, millions of dollars are spent by these industries, and the attempt by those pressing to have federaly registered pesticides regulated through the clean water act sun necessary, it's costly and ultimately undermines public health. it amounts to a duplication of compliance costs for a variety of public agencies. adding to their legal jeopardy and threatening pesticide applicators including mosquito control districts with fines t at $37,500 per day per violation. all i can say is, welcome to going out of business if you're in the private sector. across the country several mosquito control districts may have to cease operations due to these costs. if this occurs, it would expose large populations, portions of the populations, to mosquitos carrying a number of dangerous, exotic diseases, such as west nile virus. hospitalization, rehab costs, raising -- ranging from the tens of thousands into the

millions of dollars, lost productivity, decrease in tourism, negative impactings on horse, livestock production, but are a few of the costs that will further strain public health. being a veterinarian for the last 30 years, i've seen the effects of mosquito-borne diseases. in addition to west nile virus, causes deaths from algaters to humans. it also diseases such as eastern -- that's transmitble to people along with a fever that's movings i way from the caribbean to the peninsula of florida and no doubt will get up further to the mainland of the united states of america. in addition to the heart worm disease in our pets. this unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and state interests, but also to federal agency lands located in states directly regulated by the e.p.a. for example, federal agencies such as the army corps of engineers authorizes the use of some of their lands for many purposes including recreation and agricultural. these uses often require pesticides applicationses to

prevent misquito-borne transmitted disease for for other purposes. although the local mosquito control district might be the entity applying the pesticide, the army corps district has to sign off on related reports. thereby pointlessly driving up the cost of the federal government. we have agencies suing government agencies. further, the experience has shown that the corps is unwilling to assume permit responsibility for activities that is it's not actually performing. this is a regulatory burden that congress never intended and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want for the record, if i could, enter into the record a letter from 144 organizations, environmental organizations, community-based organizations around the country that oppose h.r. 935.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i think it's important for us to deal in facts and not in mythology. and a couple of the facts are these. in 2008 states reported to the e.p.a., that is state reporting agencies, said that 16,819 les of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles of bays and tuaries, and 26 -- 360,342 acres of lakes are impaired or threatened by pesticides. and so it is simply not the fact, mr. speaker, that there is no identifyified pesticide contamination in our water bodies. it's simply not true. i just want to note also for the record, mr. speaker, that again there's been no evidence

at all that despite the repeated requests of the e.p.a. and state-run permit programs, that there are specific examples where the application of the clean water act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services. and so, if there is a problem and a burden, then identify it. and there simply has been no identification of such a problem. so in closing, mr. speaker, i want to review our recent history. just on monday of this past week, the house of representatives actually defeated the bill that we're considering tonight, h.r. 935, under suspension of the rules. and so having gone through that defeat, tonight we've debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a rule that does not allow any

amendments to improve the bill to be offered, debated or voted on. and tomorrow the house will once again vote on passage of h.r. 935. the bill that failed under the suspension of the rules on monday. this legislation would undermine one of our nation's most successful environmental laws, the clean water act, and limiting the potential contamination of our nation's waters by pesticides. contrary to the rhetoric some of which we've heard tonight, mr. speaker, the environmental protection agency has successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for the last 2 1/2 years. that regulation has several commonsense, precautionary measures that limit contamination of local waters by pesticides. we've heard from the states, even since 2008, that that pesticide contamination in thousands of miles of streams

and rivers and estuaries are in fact contaminated by pesticides. while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, as consult and forestry-relateding ativities in a cost-effective manner. now, last congress the house narrowly last congress the house approved a bill under suspension of the rules by a under an as yet unseen clean water act program. the clean water act permit program that preserves vital farming, forestry, an mosquito control activities at the same time as protecting the nation's waters. years pass, we're protecting a program that's under way.

the clean water act is a value to those of white house value clean drinking water, or fishing waters, or states that rely on tourism -- water for tourism, like my state of maryland, with the longest coastline. the shoreline of the chesapeake and its title tributaries stretch for over 2,000 miles and thousands of stream, rivers and wetlands provide the fresh watter that flows to the bay. thanks to the clean water act, over the past 40-plus years, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our met and the number of goals has increased. the act is a step forward,

requiring states to protect clean waters standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing and drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharge. so, mr. speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire policy that provided no accountability to who was using what pesticides, where they were using those pesticides and in what amount. and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being contaminated by pesticides. and so, i would urge my colleagues to take the common sense approach that the e.p.a. has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle to vote no on h.r. 935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a problem, mr. speaker, that simply does not exist. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from oklahoma. >> how much time do -- does my side have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. >> i yield 8 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1/2 minutes. mr. gibbs: this bill does not deregulate pesticides. they've been regulated under fifra for years. this bill makes it clear, if you are a farmer or citizen applying a pesticide, complying with regulations, you don't need a permit. the other side said without this bill, it's not necessary because you don't have to get a permit to apply pesticides. if you're applying near a water body or wetland you do have to get a permit if the court decision. this was not an e.p.a.

decision. this was a court decision that looked at it in narrow vision and it was an ill-advised court decision. i would say when you look at the proposed rule out there about watts of the united states, it's up to debate what's near or close to a water body. so i take that as fact that we will have that. i want to share a personal experience, several years ago, my soybean crop, it was a friday afternoon, with my work -- working with my certified pesticide aply kator, we discovered that my soybean crop had been attacked by spider mites, an insect. we had to make an application, insecticide application to take care of it. that was made on friday night. if i had to apply for an n.p.s. permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit to the state -- state, comes back, i don't know if i would have been able to spray until tuesday. the damage to the crop would

have been substantial. the history that there's no cost, when this thing gets flill implemented, in practice this court decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country. but that will be coming if we fail to enact h.r. 935. this bill removes needless and duplicate regulation that threatens public health and proposes an expensive burden on public and private entities trying to approve pesticides. this is a bipartisan bill. it passed out of this house last congress by 2/3 majority. we had partisan antics going on monday night. we had peach switch their votes under pressure for partisan reasons. that is not good government. this bill will help protect the environment and human safety, especially when you look at west nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases coming

about. we have to allow our certified pesticide aply kators, our mosquito control districts, to do their job. in the private sector, a year and a half to do this extra permit, we're not talk you hear about general permit, you think, i get a permit for the season, i'm good to go. that's not what it means. it means you have to go every time you do an application, if it's near a wetland or water body, get a permit, put in where the application will be, put a date -- what happens if it's raining or windy and you can't do it, do you have to reapply for a new date? and the one that's bizarre if you're a homeowner, want to apply a pesticide to your yard if you're near a water body or wetland or whatever, you got to apply for a permit because of this court decision this will bog down the npds permit

process and it will delay, add costs, puts farmers in jeopardy, you know, to get their crops maintained and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from west nile virus and other mosquito-borne decides. this is critical that this bill is passed because we are getting close to the time where we're going to see very much damage be done. we saw a little bit of it in 2012, at least one large metropolitan area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially, it got so far out of hand because they didn't d the preventive measures. i urge members to pass this bill, send it to the senate and hopefully the senate will take it up and pass it -- pass it to protect the environment and the health and safe i have to the citizens of the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for delate has --

debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 694, the question is on the engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal insecticide, fungi crimbings de and rodenticide act regarding the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 935 is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourned today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to recognize longtime arkansas police officer mark williams he began his law enforcement career in his hometown railed doe police department in 19 7, serving as a patrolman detective sernlt. mr. cotton: he served in the hope police department's patrol

division before joining the faculty of the oregon law enforcement training academy in 1994, where he worked until his retirement in 2013. he was also a gifted musician who served as an artist education, playing his guitar to entertain and educate children across south arkansas. i extend my deepest condolences to his wife, children, and grandchildren on their loss. may they find comfort in knowing his legacy lives on in the thousands of police officers he trained over nearly two decades at the academy and the countless children and arkansans he inspired with his muse ex. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the 138th anniversary of the revenue cutter school of instruction, the predecessor of the coast guard academy.

mr. courtney: their first exercise was held aboard the two-mast scooner dobbin. the class boarded in baltimore, maryland, for a two-year training mission. training aboard the ship emphasized seamanship and vigation, as it still does each summer when student they sail on the eagle. nearly 1,000 cadets -- today here are 2,000 cadets, raduating 100 each year. today they are led by the first woman officer to lead a united , amanda litary academy stowes. i'm honored to recognize its

distinguished beginnings and the long-standing leadership an excellence that continue to serve our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. conyers: i thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house, i rise 49th to celebrate the anniversary of the medicare bill. the impact of medicare on the lives of millions of americans over the past 49 years has been extraordinary. as a result of this program, millions of americans have lived longer, more productive, and healthier lives.

i'm very fortunate and honored to be able to say that i was one of the few members still here who cast a vote for medicare in 1965. earlier that year, i joined with the gentleman from california, cecil king, and i introduced as my very first piece of legislation a bill that would have provided health care under social security and an increase of benefits. i said at that time, our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in this, the most prosperous society on earth. many of them, after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years, have been so overburdened with medical costs

that they've been denied the rewards that should come with retirement. i'm proud to say that in my nearly five decades since the enactment of medicare, the program has accomplished its mission of providing retirement security for america's seniors and care for those suffering from disabilities and debilitating diseases. yet medicare continues to face threats from some of the same opponents that opposed its enaxment back in 1965. they -- its enactment back in 1965. they continue to seek to cut medicare's guaranteed benefits and push seniors into private plans which value profits over health outcomes. today we present another path forward, one in which medicare's benefits are

protected by expanding health care security and insurance coverage to more americans, not fewer. since 2003, i've introduced h.r. 676, the expanded and improved medicare for all act, which would create a national publicly funded, privately delivered, single payer health care system. studies have shown that enacting h.r. 676 would save nearly a half trillion dollars by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private health care system. . another $100 billion would be saved by using the purchasing power of the federal government to reduce pharmaceutical prices to the levels that exist in

other industrialized nations. lastly, by slowing the growth of health care costs, h.r. 676 would save $5 trillion over the next decade, thereby ensuring that the guarantee of affordable public health insurance will be there to be enjoyed by future generations. and so for all these reasons, h.r. 676 is one of my most mportant pieces of legislation , in my way of thinking. nd i'm proud that it now has 60 co-sponsors and i want to thank the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. clark, for being the 60th sponsor. but i'd be remiss if i did not reiterate my strong support for

president obama's landmark health care legislation, the affordable care act. the affordable care act's results speak for themselves. as of this month, the percentage of uninsured americans is now the lowest on record. the affordable care act has protected as many as 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions from being denied health care coverage or being charged higher premiums. it has provided free preventive health care services such as mammograms, birth control or the hundred to

million americans who are on private insurance or medicare. around 60 million americans have gained expanded mental health benefits and since the affordable care act was enacted , almost eight million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs,s the health care law closes -- as the health care law closes medicare's doughnut hole. but as with any complex law implementation can be difficult. d there will be unforeseen issues. those issues have been seized against pponents expanding medicare -- expanding health care, who hope to eliminate health insurance for those who cannot afford it.

this is unacceptable. and while we must continue to , fend the affordable care act we must also work to ensure to the future changes affordable care act take us in the direction of the universal health care enjoyed by virtually all of the citizens of other industrialized countries. i hope the members of congress and the american public will oin me to fight for a day when in the wealthiest country on earth no one has to suffer and die unnecessarily because of -- r health care system

prioritizes corporate profits over their health. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate you being down here with me tonight. it took me a while to get my materials over here because the topic i have tonight is the topic of what this house has been doing to make a difference in the life of families across this country. that's the good news. i have to confess, i'm here on kind of a good news-bad news night. the good news is, and i have them stacked over here in front of me, this is the stack of bills that this house has passed to make a difference in the lives of families, to make a difference in small businesses, to grow the economy, to create jobs. the bills this house has passed collaboratively that sit collecting dust in the united states senate. that's the bad news part of tonight, mr. speaker. fair enough that folks think this process is broken. fair enough that folks think there's too much partisanship in washington. but what we have here are the successes. what we have here is not the

hypothetical, if-only bills. what we have here are the bills that have actually left this house and sit in the united states senate. it's 356 bills, mr. speaker. 356 bills that have left this house, that sit collecting dust in the senate. we did a hashtag, mr. speaker. #stuckinthe senate. we remember that, i'm just a bill sitting on capitol hill, that saturday morning cartoon. this is not a dictatorship. we had that conversation a little bit earlier this afternoon. it's not a dictatorship. it's a collaborative effort and the house has collaborated to pass over 356 bills that have gone to the senate to do nothing. now, again, it's a good news-bad news day. let me start with something that is good news. because if folks don't believe we can get together, if folks don't believe there is opportunity for success, i can

imagine how folks would give up. not just folks here in this chamber, but folks across the country. families across the country. this, mr. speaker, you may remember it, h.r. 803. the workplace innovation and opportunities act. i don't know if you can see it from you sit, mr. speaker. this passed the house, it passed the senate, it's signed by the president, it's become law. this was a bill to consolidate a variety of workplace training programs. we talk so much about a trained work force, how it is that we get americans who may be transitioning in their life, transitioning home from iraq or afghanistan, transitioning from an industry that is in decline to an industry that is growing hour do we get those folks trained? and what we found, and i credit dr. virginia foxx with this, she is one of my colleagues here in the house, i served with her on the rules committee, but she also serves on the education and labor committee. and she's been working on trying to consolidate programs to take money from programs

that were not effective and move them to places that were effective. imagine that. imagine that. here she is, a conservative republican, what she was trying to do was take money from places that weren't working and put it into places where it would make a difference for moms and dads and kids. and she did it. and she did it. now, what we passed out of the house was strong, mr. speaker. it was strong. we went out and we found every single program that was failing america, we brought them together, put them into a single pot, sent that over to the senate. the senate said no, we don't think all those programs are failing. we're not ready to move that big of a package, we want to do something smaller. they ended up consolidating about half of what we consolidated here in the house. but guess what? when you elect rob woodall, dictator, then i get to have it my way, every day, but until then this is a collaborative effort here. the house, the senate, the president. we worked with the senate, we

worked out our differences, we found that package of consolidation and we sent it to the president and we got his signature. that's what the american people expect. that's what my constituents expect. they expect us to work together to get things done. not sacrificing principle. not compromising on values. but finding consensus. because we all agree that american workers need help, we all agree that moms and dads in transition need to find a better way to feed their family. we can spend tax dollars better, we found a way to do that here. golly, i call it common sense, mr. speaker. it's not supposed to take a rocket scientist to sort some of these issues out. it's supposed to be common sense. did i mention #stuckinthesenate, mr. speaker? did i mention it, because if i didn't, i want to mention it right now. here's one that really gets me. i'm just talking about hiring more moms and dads.

it's called the hire more heroes act. do you remember it, mr. speaker? we passed it out of this house with over 400 votes. now, young high school students, middle school students, they might not know if they're watching tonight, mr. speaker, they might not know how many members there are in the house. there are 435 members in this house. and more than 400 of them said, we should pass the hire more heroes bill. it's stuck in the senate. over 400 votes voted yes, only one voted no. so i don't want to hear about partisanship in the house. i don't want to hear about republican this and democratic that. 400-plus votes said let's pass this bill. i'll tell what you it does. hire more heroes act says, one of the highest rates of unemployment we have in this country are men and women in uniform coming home from overseas. and it says that we have small employers in this country, because as you know, mr. speaker, most of the employment in america is not driven by the

big guys, it's driven by small employers. we heard from small employers in this country who said, i want to hire those veterans but i'm worried about that 50-employee threshold that throws me into this brand new round of obamacare regulations. guess what this house did, mr. speaker? republicans, democrats, more than 400 out of 435, got together and they said, if you're a small business owner in america and you want to put unemployed veterans to work, but you don't because you're worried about some federal government regulation dealing with obamacare, we will waive that regulation for you. hire all the veterans you want to and be not afraid of federal government regulation. think about that. think about that. because it's what i think about. it's why i ran for congress. it's why my friends on the other side of the aisle ran for congress, mr. speaker. we came to make a depinches. make a difference. who among us doesn't want to see unemployment vet cans get a

job? who -- veltrans get a job? who among us doesn't want to see small businesses succeed? we came together more than 400 of us -- together, more than 400 of us, to pass the hire more heroes act, but it's passed -- stuck in the senate. why? why? , er 400, over 400 of us almost every democrat, we lost one, but every republican, almost every one of us voted yes. to make a difference for small businesses, get them the labor that they need, make a difference for veterans looking for a job. it was a good bill, mr. speaker. still is. and it's stuck in the senate. it's not stuck because we can't come to agreement on it, mr. speaker. it's not stuck because republicans are intransigent. is stuck because the senate

can't get these bills moving. mr. speaker, i'm not asking folks to just come together and do what i want them to do. what i'm talking about are things that we're celebrating in this institution. i'm not talking about things that squeak through by the skin of their teeth. i'm not talking about republican proposals that we jammed through with the might of the majority. i'm talking about commonsense proposals that make a difference in people's lives. i'll give you one. how about h.r. 4414, mr. speaker? it's the expatriate health coverage clarification act. doesn't sound very exciting, does it? and you know what? it's not very exciting. for about 99% of americans. but for americans who have to work overseas and who have seen their health insurance policies canceled, quadrupled in price, folks who struggled to find

coverage at all, what they says is that, you know what, if you don't live in america but you're working for an american company, really you can sort out your insurance needs on your own over there. if you don't live in america, you don't have to comply with all these needs because guess what, guess what, if you you're doing business in london, the health care system's different in england. if you're doing business in paris, the health care system is different in france. if you do business in moscow, the health care system is different in russia. the rules we passed here won't work in those places, it's common sense. had we not jammed that bill through congress, that affordable care act, maybe we would have gotten to that, but i don't know. it's a small group of people. we passed a solution, let's look. 269-150. i dare say the folks who voted no wouldn't say they opposed the policy, but it was a symbol of undermining the president. they didn't want to undermine

the president. i want to make a difference in the lives of families. 92 days, 92 day this is bill as been sitting in the senate. now that's a minor piece of legislation, mr. speaker. it would make a big impact but for a small number of people. what about things that make a big impact for a large number of people? what about those things? the rains act, it's a kay si bill -- the rains act, it's a crazy bill, it says you need to consider the economic impact of a regulation before you pass it. while that's commonsense in atlanta, that's crazy here in washington, d.c. before you pass a regulation, weigh the pros and cons to see if it's a good idea or not. weigh the pros and cons. it's the rains act because we're just out of control with regulation and we need to have a thoughtful conversation about

it. h.r. 1105, the small business capital access and job preservation act. trying to find ways for our small businesses to get access to the capital they need and what has been incredibly tight credit markets. h.r. 2374, the retail investor protection act. time and time again, mr. speaker, we are passing bills, they're all here. they're all sitting on harry reid's desk over there in the senate. passing bills in an effort to make a difference in people's lives. if it didn't matter, we wouldn't be interested in doing it. i don't have a bill in this stack that's about making a political statement. i don't have a bill in this stack that's about trying to be one up on the other guy. trying to embarrass something, trying to call somebody out. -- i have in this stack

did i mention there were 356 bills in this stack? what i have in this stack are bills that could make a difference to a struggling economy today. today. i say today. these bills passed a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, or more. they could make a difference. they're #stuckin thesenate. 356 bills. i've got the great honor tonight, mr. speaker, not alone in this endeavor. hadn't been alone in passing 356 bills. it has been a team sport from day one. team sport from day one. republicans, democrats, folks from the north, folks from the south, folks representing families from across the country. they -- tonight i've got mr.

roskam here, 18-month member of this institution. came, i wager, not to make a point, but to make a difference. and has been doing that every day he's been in this chamber. i'm happy to yield to this gentleman. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for organizing this very inform -- mr. rothfus: i thank the gentleman for organizing this very informative special order tonight. i came here to be part of a team that will relight america. relight the job market. relight opportunity. relight the american dreamful because people are hungry for it. they see this town that's out of control. they look at this town. and if they visit this town they marvel at the growth that's happening in washington, d.c. i challenge everybody who visits washington to count the construction cranes they see and the explosive growth and he high end shops that open here

and the concentration of wealth and power in this town. it's a scandal to the rest of the country. i see construction cranes here on pennsylvania avenue, i'd like to see those construction cranes back in pennsylvania, mr. speaker. but this is a very important discussion we're having about the actions that this house is taking, to relight the american economy. and how it gets snuffed out in the senate. as we review this evening, mr. speaker, the house has continued to pass legislation that would move our country ahead, grow our economy, add more jobs and increase wages and prosperity. and then there's the brick wall across the other side of the capitol. nowhere is the senate's inaction more evident than in the budgeting and appropriations process we have here in washington, d.c. the senate and house have together managed to pass all 12

appropriations bills and complete the appropriations process on time by september 30, only four times since 1977. it's shocking. this house, mr. speaker, has been working to correct this problem. i want to recognize the hard work of the house appropriations committee and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. this year the appropriations committee has already passed 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee. seven of those bills have already passed the house here. most of them with strong, bipartisan majorities. how many bills, how many appropriations bills has the senate passed? zero. they've yet to pass a single one. the senate's failure to do its work is disappointing, but it's not surprising. that's why i introduced the congressional pay for

performance bill this year, and it's simple. the house and senate must pass a budget and all appropriations bills by august 1 or have their pay withheld until the job is done. it applies the fundamental lesson we a learn in our first job. if you don't do your work you don't get paid until you do. that's the lesson millions of young americans learned working their first job this summer. it's a lesson i learned on my first paper routism didn't get paid if i didn't deliver the paper. it's pastime for members of congress to live by that lesson. beyond the senate's fail rainshower to execute their constitutionally prescribed job appropriations, the house has passed arks you noted, more than 350 bills, including many jobs bills, that senator reid allows to collect dust in the senate. over 98% of these bills have passed with bipartisan support. both republicans and democrats. as of this morning, mr. speaker, 195 of these bills passed without opposition. and house democrats introduced

60 of these bills that now gather dust in the senate. and again and again the senate refuses to act. mr. woodall: if the gentleman would yield. mr. rothfus: happen toy to -- happy to yield. mr. woodall: what my constituents believe is that it's partisanship that shut this constitution down, that's to republicans fighting with democrats, and democrats fighting with republicans, but there are 350 bills that are sitting in the senate that passed the house, 60 of those were introduced by democrats. mr. rothfus: 60 of those bills, mr. speaker, you look at the stack of paper that the gentleman from georgia has with him here today. mr. speaker, 60 of those bills were introduced by democrats. yet they gather dust in the democrat-controlled senate. mr. wood al: i thank the gentleman. -- mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman.

mr. roth fust: we passed bills to reduces, increase production, and promote american energy independence. bills like the natural gas pipeline permit regular form act. the energy consumers relief act. the northern route approval act which will get the keystone x.l. pipeline going. passed in may of 2013. 241-175. it's been sitting over in the enate for 435 -- 434 days. we passed dozens of regulatory reform bills and keep an out of touch and out of control washington bureaucracy in check. like the rains act that the gentleman from florida mentioned a simple bill. if a regulatory agency puts out a regulation on the economy that's going to cost more than $50 million to implement, suppressing jobs growth, bring it pack here for an up or down vote.

let's restore that constitutional responsibility for both the senate and house who had that responsibility for making the law and let us take accountability for that. if there's a regulation that needs approval, we'll vote for it. that's being accountable. you can't fire the bureaucrats that come with the regulations that have a negative impact on our my. we've also passed the achieving less excess in regulation and requiring transparency act, known as the alert act. it's an effort to approve thoughtful consequences of the regulation. i offered an amendment to the alert act. the amendment requires the capital bure -- capitol bureaucrats to act noming if their regulations will have a negative impact on jobs and wages in a particular industry. any such regulation would be subject to additional review to ensure that the benefits justify the cost to families and communities.

the principle is simple. if washington bureaucrats are going to implement rules that take wages or jobs away from hardworking americans, they should take responsibility for andoff their decisions. it's porn that regulators think through the impacts, costs, and burdens that impacts impose on fam is will and communities and it's -- on families and communities and it's time for the senate to come to the support of those families and communities and take up the alert act. we passed several tax related bills to help individuals keep more of their hard-earned money and help small businesses add jobs and increase wages, like the child tax credit improvement act and the student and families tax simplification act. we've heard stories of people whose hours have been cut because of the 30-hour workweek in the president's health care law but the house has acted. that's why we passed the save american workers act to restore the traditional 40-hour workweek and help those who want the opportunity to work more hours and see their wages

go up. the senate has to act. time and again, mr. speaker, the house has acted. but the senate has not. i really thank the gentleman from georgia for shining a light on what's going on at this capitol. the production that's coming out of this side of the capitol and then hits the wall on the other side. it's time for the senate to act. i yield back@gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'd like to ask the gentleman to say for -- stay for a minute. i see you're here with two lovey young ladies ethe next generation of leaders. i've got to be honest with you, i didn't come to deal with those big issues that are amour fuss, i came to deal with those issues that make a difference in the lives of people today and tomorrow. we talk about the keystone pipeline but i live in georgia. we're not drilling wells in

georgia, i can't tell much difference in the price at the pump, i don't have many families saying, this is going to make a difference in my pocketbook or for job here in atlanta, georgia. you come from tanchte part of the country. can you see the difference that these bills make, not from a republican-democrat partisan perspective but from a real world difference, real dollars in family's pockets back home? mr. rothfus: absolutely, mr. speaker. the gentleman from georgia notes that western pennsylvania has a growing energy industry. we are seing a tremendous number of jobs coming in, family-sustaining jobs. and bear in mind, mr. speaker, when somebody gets a job in that field and they start to get that paycheck and every american who gets a paycheck sees this, there's some stuff that's taken out, there's a fica charge, a medicare charge tax.

and federal taxes. mr. speaker, that's how we're paying for social security. that's how we're paying for medicare. when people pay their income taxes is how we pay for the defense of our country. this is a dangerous world, mr. speaker. we need to have an economy that is generating the kind of jobs where people can get back to work and get those salaries and wages so that when they pay taxes, they're paying for social security, medicare, veterans' benefits. we've got a boom like you've never seen before, mr. speaker. and the gentleman from georgia has all these bills there that show the work that this house is doing, all too help this economy get growing again. if you want to be paying for social security, if you want to p paying for medicare. if you want to be paying for veteran's benefits, we've got to grow this economy at 4%, at 5%, yes, at 6%.

so many people, mr. speaker, have said, oh, that's not going to happen. we can't get there. it happened. it happened in the 1980's. it happened in the 1990's. we can do this. we are a blessed land, mr. speaker. and in western pennsylvania, we see that. we're having a big debate right now with respect to the president's greenhouse gas emissions and there's testimony being taken across the country, including in pittsburgh. the president promised in 2008 when he was running for his seat, quote, electricity rates will necessarily sky delem rocket. no single person should have the authority to impose a policy on a country that would cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket. that's why the rains act is so important. that's why senator reid has to move the rains act