tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 26, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
the chair: the yeas are 167, the nays are 243, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-454, by the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. rogers of michigan. 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 arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
the chair: the yeas are 412, the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-454
offered by mr. quayle of arizona. the chair: a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. amash of michigan. 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 arisen, 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 415. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. 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 arisen, 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
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 416. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia.
the chair: those in support of the request for a 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 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 414, the nays are 1, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and the yase prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of a 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 is a two-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house of the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3253, 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 the amendment of the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
those in favor say aye. in favor will say aye, those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for certain cyber threat intelligence and information between the intelligence communities and cybersecurity entities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the aldeserves to be heard. members will please take their conversations from the i'll -- aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition?
mr. perlmutter: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed? mr. perlmutter: in its current form, i am. the clerk: mr. perlmutter of colorado moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, add the following new section, section 3, protecting the privacy of internet passwords and the creativity of the internet. nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to one, permit an employer, a perspective employer to require the disclosure of a confidential password for a social networking web site or a personal account of an employee or job applicant without a court order or two, permit the federal government to establish a mechanism to control united states citizens access to and use of the internet for the creation of a national internet
firewall similar to the great internet firewall of china as determined by the director of the national intelligence. page 12, line 22, strike and. page 12, line 25, strike a period and insert a semi-colon. the number of americans who have, i, been required by employers, prospective employers or the federal government to release confidential passwords for social networking web sites and ii, have personal information released to the federal government under the section or obtained in connection with a cybersecurity breach and h, the impact of the information that has been released or obtained as referred to in subparagraph c on privacy, electronic commerce, internet auseiege and online content -- usage and online content.
the speaker pro tempore: all members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from colorado deserves to be heard. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: the house has heard this before. it's very simple, sweet and direct and i'll take a moment and just read it so everybody has a chance to understand it again. what we're doing is avoiding and prohibiting an employer as a condition of employment demanding a facebook password, a confidential facebook password, twitter and reads this way. nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to permit an employer, a prospective employer or the federal government to require the disclosure of a confidential password for a social networking web site or personal account of an employee or job applicant without a court
order or in the second paragraph, permit the federal government to establish a mechanism to control united states citizens' access to and use of the internet through the creation of a national internet firewall similar to the great internet firewall of china, as determined by the director of the national intelligence. so what this amendment does, and it is the final amendment to this bill. there are no more amendments to this bill. it just does two things which i know some people voted against this amendment when it was brought up a couple of weeks ago and for those of you regret voting against it, you will get a chance to correct that vote. this is something i have been working on with mr. heinrich and mr. mchenry and it just says, we're not going to allow as a condition of employment the requirement of a facebook
password or the like. now, there's a reason for this, because, one, there is all sorts of personal information that i may have or somebody else may have with respect to their facebook or twitter or linked in and they are entitled to have an expectation of privacy, that their freedom of speech, their right to peaceable assemble is not violated. second reason is the employer or federal government poses as having their password, they can impersonate and it is a two hive way exchange of information so that somebody who is completely unrelated to the employment now is communicating with an impossible ter. that is another -- impossible
tore. the other reason is to avoid liability by learning information that may then cause them to take actions that would violate a protected group. so there are three good reasons to do this. we have precedent in our law and it is the employee polygraph protection act of 1988. we said we aren't going to allow as a condition of employment the use of lie detectors. you can use background checks, references, there are plenty of vehicles to check out someone's references but we aren't going to allow lie detectors and should not allow facebook passwords be given up as a condition of employment. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized.
mr. perlmutter: we don't allow polygraphs as a condition of employment. let's use background checks, references, et cetera. the second piece is we won't allow command and control of the internet or access to the internet by the united states government. saying similar, we want to avoid what has happened in china and avoid what has happened in iran and don't want our internet taken down and individual's access to the internet be broken. there are two pieces to this, one is not allowing the demand of a confidential password and not allowing the government to have a command and control and be able to take down the internet similar to what we have seen in other countries. this is a very simple amendment. it's very straightforward. we have had a lot of amendments that have garnered virtually every member of this house. this should be one of those.
this is the final amendment. i would hope we would uphold the constitution by passing this amendment and making sure the internet is available to anyone who wants to use it at any time. and with that, i yield back to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: today, 300 times someone will be trying to get into our credit card company. in the last few years, just in defense contractors, foreign nation states have stolen more intellectual property that will end up protecting this country that is equivalent to 50 times the print collection of our u.s. library of congress. anonymous is attacking business and today, attacks wall street. there are people out there today that are literally robbing the
future of america for our jobs, our prosperity and our economic prowess in the world and they are doing it by design. a year ago we set out to try to do something small. if we have some bad software, some bad malicious virus information, shouldn't we be obligated it to share it with the private sector so they can protect themselves? absolutely. if we don't do this, a nation state like china has geared itself if for the very purpose, military and intelligence services, for the very purpose of economically wounding the united states by draining our intellectual property dry and they have done it by stealing formulas and done it by stealing pharmaceutical formulas and intellectual property when it relates to military hardware and copied it and cost us a tremendous amount of more money to have to go back and redesign
it. so we can play games and do silly things. this amendment does nothing to protect a person's private password at home. nothing, not one thing. but it is serving to try to maybe send it back to committee and come back. this has been a bipartisan bill. i can't tell you how disappointing this amendment is to me. i have worked with mr. ruppersberger and members of the committee and worked with the privacy groups and civil libertarian answer --s. and this doesn't do anything. i get it, it sounds great and you are going to run out and do some bad things with it. this is our nation's defense. this is the last thing we need to do to protect this country. we have done it since 9/11. we did homeland security. we've done the patriot act. we have done other things that this body and the other body and
the president of the united states signed to protect this country as our constitution tells us to do for the common defense of this great nation. and i'll tell you something, we can have this debate. we can talk about a bill that does absolutely nothing to protect someone's private password at home or get about the business to try to give the private sector just a little bit of information to protect people's private information in the comfort of their home so we can protect this nation from a catastrophic attack. the director of the national security didn't say maybe, could happen, they said it will happen. this is the one small thing we get to do to prepare for a whole bunch of folks out there who want to bring this nation down. we ought to stand together in a bipartisan way and ought to reject all of the misconfusion and all of the things they are saying about this bill that are not true and we ought to stand
here and say we respect the fact that you kept the government stuff government and private stuff private and you are just sharing some pretty bad information so they can apply it to their patches that happen on your computer every single day thousands of times a day to try to keep viruses off your computer and that's it. . the buffett rule isn't in the bill. i don't think that ought to get a veto threat either. this is where we are. this is that first small step. i'm going to ask all of you to join us today, reject this red herring, this, and stand with america, they need it. you know, there are three million businesses with all the associations telling us, please give us that classified secret malwear information that your government has so we can protect
the people we have as customers and clients. they're begging for it. because they're getting killed. every single day. it's happening right this second. this is our chance to stand up, this was a bipartisan effort. if you really believe in bipartisanship, if you believe that's the future of this chamber, and that's the dignity of the very founding fathers that gave it to us, then today is the day to prove it. reject this amendment, stand for america, support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. ask for a recorded vote. the chair: 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. pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit, followed by five-minute volts on passage of h.r. 523 if ordered and suspension of the rules with regard to h.r. 2050 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 183, the nays are 233, the amendment -- the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair of the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: i request a record roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nays are 168. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2050 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 304, h.r. 2050, a bill to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on national forest system land in the frank church river of no return wilderness in the state
of idaho and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. members are asked to clear the well of the house, to take their seats.
members are asked to please take their seats, please take their conversations from the floor of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, h.r. 3523, the clerk be altogether riced to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the house. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.
desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: insert deny access to or before degrade in each place it appears. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> miami heat, i move that the house -- madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4257 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4257, a bill to amend chapter 35 of title 44, united states code, to revise requirements relating to federal information security and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, so ordered. mr. issa: madam speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the floor statement made by the honorable ralph hall, chairman of the committee on science, space and technology, be inserted in the record at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. issa: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, cybersecurity threats represent one of the most serious national security and economic challenges we face as a nation. whether it's criminal hackers, organized crime, terrorist networks or national states, our national -- nation is under siege from dangerous cybersecurity threats that grow daily in frequency and sophistication. it is critical that the federal government address cybersecurity threats in a manner that keeps pace with the nation's growing dependence on technology. the president himself recently stated, cybersecurity is a challenge that we as a government or as a country are
not adequately prepared to counter. madam speaker, it is essential that we in fact change that here today. current law does not adequately address the nature of today's cybersecurity threats. since the enactment, since its enactment in 2002 of the federal information security management act or fisma, it has become a check-the-box compliance activity that all too often has little to do with minimizing security threats and yet the government accountability office recently found that security incidence among 24 key agencies increased more than 650% during the last five years. to address the rising challenge posed by cyberthreats, ranking member cummings and i introduced h.r. 4257, the federal information security amendments act of 2012. the bill aims to -- excuse me. the bill aims to harness the
last decade of technological innovation and security -- in securing the federal information systems. it amends fisma to move beyond the check-the-box compliance mentality. it enhances the current framework for securing federal information technology systems, our bill calls for automatic mated and continuous monitoring, i repeat, madam speaker, automated and continuous monitoring of government information systems. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. issa: thank you, madam speaker. and it ensures the control, monitoring finally incorporates regular threat assessment. madam speaker, this is the most important part of what we do. continuous monitoring and constant threat assessments so that never again will we find that the incidents are going up double digits every month in some cases.
the bill also reaffirms the role of the office of management and budget or o.m.b. with respect to fisma, recognizing that budgetary leverage, the executive office of president is necessary to ensure agencies are focused on effective security of its i.t. systems. our bill does not include new requirements, restrictions or mandates on private or nonfederal computer systems. h.r. 4257 does highlight the need for stronger public-private partnerships. through our website, keepthewebopen.com, our bill has been vetted by the american people. it has also received strong support from cybersecurity experts and industries, including the information technology industry council and the business software alliance. i'd like to thank my ranking member, mr. cummings, for a
one-on-one equal partnership with me in the efforts to address the growing threat for cybersecurity. he has led the way on his side of the aisle and i have been honored to serve on my side. we have encouraged all members to support this timely legislation. we recognize that some things are too important to be partisan. this certainly is one of them and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: madam speaker, first of all i'd like to express my appreciation to the chairman of our committee, first of all, for his kind words and for his cooperation. i start by thanking him for working with me and my staff to make this a bipartisan effort and it is truly a bipartisan effort. from the beginning we agreed that we did not want to make securing our federal information systems a partisan issue and
that securing our nation against a cyberattack is an issue that transcends any party lines. this bill is evidence of the good work that we can do when we work together to address an important issue like cybersecurity. not only does this bill enjoy bipartisan support, but it is noncontroversial. last week the bill was marked up in committee and passed on a voice vote. the only amendments considered made constructive changes to the bill that were recommended by the national institutes of standards and technology and the government accountability office. these changes enjoy universal support in committee. this legislation will ensure that federal agencies use a risk-based approach to defend against cyberattacks and protect government information from being compromised by our adversaries. the bill would make key changes to help protect our federal information systems from
cyberattacks. it would shift the federal government -- it would shift the federal government to a system of continuous monitoring of information systems, streamline reporting requirements and ensure that agencies take a smart risk-based approach to securing networks. this bill will continue to authorize the office of management and budget to set federal policy for information security. this is important because we need to hold all agencies accountable for developing appropriate standards and living up to them. however, nothing in this bill would prevent the department of homeland security from continuing the great work it is doing to protect our nation against potential cyberattacks. the department was dramatically expanded -- has dramatically expanded its cybersecurity quork force and has built the national cybersecurity integration service, federal governments, cybersecurity command center. this command center is a vital part of our efforts to protect
federal information systems. earlier this month, the head of u.s. cybercommand, general keith alexander, testified that the security of our nation against cyberthreats is one of our biggest national security changes. securing our systems is a critical component of -- component of this challenge and i urge my colleagues to join me and our chairman in supporting this. with that, madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> madam speaker, we have a speak own the other side far colloquy, i reserve at this time to allow him to go next. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, three minutes for a colloquy with the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes.
mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker and i thank my friend from maryland, the distinguished ranking member. i rise to ask the chairman, mr. issa to engage in colloquy. and i want to thank chairman issa and appreciate the work he and the ranking member, mr. cummings, and their staff on this legislation, which i think is a thoughtful, bipartisan update to an information security bill actually written be my predecessor and the chairman, tom davis of virginia. the fisma amendments act changes from compliance to performance measures. of course when considering the performance of federal agencies, its natural extension to question the relationship between the executive branch and those agencies in a relationship among technology and cybersecurity related positions within the executive branch. i appreciate president obama's focus on technology, particularly the chief information officer's 25-point plan but i'm concerned the
current ad hoc nature of the cybersecurity coordinator could create certain risks in continuity of operations challenges when we look to the future administrations. i would ask chairman issa if he shares those concerns, and i yield. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. i do share those concerns and appreciate the gentleman's work on this. proper organization of the executive branch is essential to a successful long-term management of technology and particularly cybersecurity this policy is going to -- is going to require additional work. fisma is not the end but a starting point. i would look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure as we work with the executive branch we get it right, keep the focus where it needs to be on all the agencies and bringing them together. i yield back. mr. connolly: i thank the chairman and look forward to working with him and the
ranking member as well as mr. langevin of rhode island who has been a leader on this subject to address the subject in the context of cybersecurity. with the right framework, i believe current and future administrations will be able to more efficiently implement these reforms and other related legislation. given its jures kix, the oversight and government reform committee is the appropriate venue to develop such legislation and i look forward to working with the committee chair and ranking member to advance it. i thank the chairman and the speaker and the ranking member and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from rhode island mr. langevin three minute farce colloquy with the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague and friend, the chairmannle of the committee on oversight and
government reform, mr. issa. i first would like to thank the chairman for his hard work, his efforts to update the federal information security management act have been commendably inclusive and bipartisan and i want to thank him and his staff, as well as mr. cummings and mr. connolly and their staff for all the outreach and good faith negotiation that's occurred during the crafting of this legislation. there can be no question that the fisma reform language before the house today is both sorely needed and long overdue. to this end, together with my good friend and our former colleague ms. watson, i introduced an amendment that passed the house overwhelmingly last congress during consideration of the f.y. 2011 national defense authorization act. but that amendment, which was unfortunately stripped out during conference with the senate, would have made important updates to fisma in addition to establishing a national office for cyberspace in the executive office of the
president. such an office has been recommended by the obama administration's 60-day cyberspace policy review, preist sector working groups such as the csis commission which i co-chair with my good friend, mr. mccaul and the g.a.o. as a response to security deficiencies throughout the federal government. while i applaud my friend for delivering on the needs of his reform, i'd like to ask the chairman if he gave thought to such organizational changes within the executive branch in a particular organization like national office for cyberspace during the drafting of this legislation? i yield to my friend. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. yes, we did. your leadership in cybersecurity matters including fisma reform have been essential. when we served on the committee, i recognized you put more time an effort into the behind-the-door work than any
of us and in fact you and i share some of the challenges we face with the d.n.i. and other earlier organizations but i share with you that your suggestions on how we can in fact find single point accountability in future legislation, in concert with this administration is eenis -- is essential. i look forward to working with you on that i know of no other partner i could have on the other side of the aisle who is more prepared to do it and i thank the gentleman. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for that. i would like to encourage the gentleman to continue in this open and bipartisan fashion. i'd like to ask if you'd be interested in working together on such subsequent legislation or with mr. cummings and mr. connolly who have been so involved -- involved and thoughtful on this issue. i believe such legislation should include strong, centralized oversight to protect our nation's critical infrastructure, including budgetary or oversight power while remaining accountable to congress. i yield to mr. issa.
mr. issa: i couldn't agree with the gentleman more. your work with our staff has been essential and i think we have to have that ongoing effort to get to there. i saw the ranking member's head also shaking. i know we'll both look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman and look forward to working with the gentleman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. issa: i would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from utah, the chairman of the subcommittee that has done so much on, in fact, cybersecurity, mr. chaffetz. mr. chaffetz: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i appreciate chairman issa and his foresight and leadership on this issue in driving this forward. this is so, so important to our country and our nation for the
federal government to operate properly. madam speaker, i also want to thank and recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, doing so, his unparalleled support and need just patriotism for what's good for this nation, working together in a bipartisan way. this is, i think, what the american people want and what they get in this pill. i also want to share the fact that cybersecurity is a real threat. it's a threat to the mom who has got the computer sitting in there in the kitchen and the kids are going every direction, to the most secure infrastructure we have in our federal government. it is imperative that we get this right. because everything from a guy in a van down by the river to nation states, our country is under constant bombardment and attack for intellectual property to trade secrets to what's going on in this government. while this is focused on what our government is doing and how it's organized and it updates the law so that we have the
right provisions at the right place and we're doing the right thing, we have to be vigilant as a people. this is focused, not -- it doesn't give a new mandate. there's no new mandate on the american people, no mandate on businesses. what this does is gets the structure for what should happen in the federal government right. and updating and doing things like continuous monitoring, vulnerability assessments and penetration tests that are done within the federal government. it requires a chief information security officer within these different agencies and it focuses these efforts upon the director of the o.m.b. by really putting the focal -- focal point on the executive branch within the white house, you'll get a much better response. everything from the bureau of indian affairs an everything in between, we have to make sure that our systems are updated because the threat is constant, it is real, it is 24-7, and without these updates, without the constant monitor, without these types of things, we will
be doing a disservice to the american people and we will not be living up to the commitment we have to make sure that these networks are secure as they possibly can be. this is something that will be with us, not just for the next six months or the next year but for the foreseeable future and madam speaker, that's why i'm so enthusiastic about this bill. i appreciate the bipartisan nature in which it was done and i certainly appreciate chairman issa and his leadership on this. i am glad to be part of it, i encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bag. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we don't have any additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: with great pleasure, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman who coordinated so much of the work we're doing today, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two
minutes. mr. thornberry: i thank chairman issa for yielding and madam chair, i want to thank the gentleman for working together and brinning this important bill to the floor. i want to commend the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, who was a member of our task force and as the chairman noted ases -- has done so much work on this. madam speaker, this is an important bill on cybersecurity. the fisma law, passed in 2002, needs to be updated. the growth in number and sophistication of the threats has not been matched by our response. and so laws and policies are increasingly outdated and not able to keep up with the threats faced by federal networks as well as private sector networks. and this bill requires continuous monitoring, as you have heard. the threat is dynamic. it changes. it doesn't work anymore to just check a box and say, i've done this. you have to have that continuous monitoring of what's
happening within your networks. that's important for defense of the federal government, but it's also important to be an example for the rest of the country and in cybersecurity, it seems to me, it's particularly important for the federal government to lead by example. i also want to just say that this is an example of an issue a part of cybersecurity, on which everybody agrees. needs to happen and they have brought this committee -- this committee has brought a bipartisan answer. we cannot allow differences that may exist between this body and the other body on other cybersecurity issues to prevent us from taking action, getting something accomplished on something that everybody agrees on. this is one of the things everybody adeprees needs to happen, information sharing, everybody agrees on. research and development that we'll have tomorrow on the floor, everybody agrees needs to happen. so i appreciate the work of this committee, it's an important bill, it will help make the nation more secure as
well as its government and i hope all members will support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, we are, i think this is -- i want to associate myself with all the words that have been said by both sides this evening. because we understand that cybersecurity is so very, very important to our nation. we often look back to 9/11 and we think about what happened in that very short time and how it disrupted our entire nation, taking planes out to have the air, curings world to at least pause, and we saw the damage that was done in a matter of a few minutes. cybersecurity and the cyberthreat is just as great,
if not far greater, and can happen very, very quickly. cyberattack can take place very, very quickly. it's something we must do everything in our power to protect ourselves against. this bill does not solve all the problems. but it certainly leads us in the right direction and again, i want to thank the chairman, i want to thank everybody involved for the bipartisan effort and making the security of our nation our number one priority. with that, i urge all members to vote for this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yeeds back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: in closing i urge all member togs support the pass and -- members to support passage of this bill and i want to make one closing statement. often we talk about cybersecurity and people think about just the internet. we sit here in a room that is essentially windowless.
i've been in this room when the lights are out. it is very, very dark. we would have a hard time finding our way out. and yet the very essence of keeping the grid up requires computers to talk to each other. our phone systems, our lights, our power, our sewage, our water all depend today on interoperable computer systems that span the entire country and in many cases the entire world. so as people realize that the government to government relationship, and particularly the public-private partnerships, that this bill encourages and asks the office of management and budget to assure occur, we're doing so, of course, to maintain a reliable internet, but much more importantly the fundamentals of the very electricity that powers the internet must be maintained and protected. and i believe we've gone a long way today in passage of this bill. i urge its passage. i thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on
this important matter and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4257 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas arise? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, in the quiet town of wood sock et, rhode island, a 91-year-old memorial honoring hometown
soldiers stands tall outside a local fire station. a stone bottom statue with a cross on top immortalizes the fallen heroes who sacrificed so much for our country. for decades the memorial has stood in the shadows of the fire station with no complaints from local residents. but a group of out of towners, not from rhode island, but from 1,000 miles away in wisconsin, have self-righteously objected to the cross on top of the 91-year-old memorial. the anti-religious hate group demands the cross be removed. they also demand the firefighters prayer and an gel from the fire department website be we moved. madam speaker, the firefighter prayer asks god to give them strength to save lives and to protect the families of the firefighters. county officials will not succumb to the intimidation tactics of the bigoted group. the mayor has said he will not remove the cross under any circumstances. because the constitution
protects the free exercise of religion, whether this hate group likes it or not and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. berkley: madam speaker, it's hard to believe that in the 21st century women in nevada are still making only 83 cents for every $1 that a man makes. what does that mean in real terms? it means a difference of $7,326 a year. it is not fair. in most cases working women in nevada are either the primary or the soul bread winners of their family and that's why i'm calling on the speaker to follow the senate's lead and schedule a vote on the paycheck fairness act, legislation that will help close the unacceptable wage gap between men and women in this country. unfortunately far too many in the house and the senate are still living in the dark age
when is it comes to basic fairness for women. women in nevada are still shaking their heads in disbelief that in the year 2012 one of the major debates in this congress is whether to restrict access to birth control and now there are those in the house and senate who have voted time and time again against enforcing equal pay for equal work. it's time for this congress to join the rest of us in the 21st century. let's get the paycheck fairness bill on the floor and let's vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. davis of kentucky for today and for april 27. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for 60 minutes as
the designee of the majority leader. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. tonight myself and other members of the house are going to talk about energy issues in the united states. probably a timely thing to start with are the recent comments by one of the individuals who works for the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a. and the more relearn about the e.p.a., the more we learn that they are hostile to real american energy for various reasons. let me give you some historical perspective that makes this continuous assault on the oil and gas industry make sense to us now in 2012. it seems that back in 2010, two years ago, e.p.a. region six administrator stood up on his bureaucratic pedestal of power and spelled out the true intentions that he had and the goals of the e.p.a.
he declared that the e.p.a. and declared this from his marble palace here in washington, d.c., that the e.p.a. would target the oil and gas industry, calling it an enforcement priority. as if, madam speaker, the oil and gas industry is made up of criminals. he went on, and i quote, i was in a meeting once and i have and gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement. and i think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but i'll just go ahead and tell you what i said. and here's what he said, madam speaker. it was kind of like how the romans used to do. you know, concur villages in the mediterranean. they'd go into a little turkish town, somewhere they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. that's right.
they would crucify them. as if he is advocating crucifying the oil and gas industry. what a thing to say from somebody that works for the federal government. he said he would make examples out of the people in the oil and gas industry. probably unknown to him, his speech was all caught on videotape that recently surfaced. in fact, it was on the internet, youtube, last night. but today mysteriously it seems to have disappeared and is no longer on youtube. that was in 2010. these comments help us understand the e.p.a.'s bereligious rant attitude against -- belligerent attitude against energy, american energy, against the oil and gas industry. what came after was one of the most aggressive assaults on the oil and gas industry we've ever seen. the e.p.a. is at war with the -- with texas, as "the wall street journal" editorial once said. i think the e.p.a. probably
should change their name to the war department, because they are at war with america's energy. they certainly aren't concerned as much about the environment as they are about putting american energy out of business. madam speaker, the oil and gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs in the united states. i wonder how many of those workers he wants to crucify all in the name of his political agenda. madam speaker, we need a fair e.p.a., one that brings a balanced approach to the environment and to our energy industry. an attack on the energy industry is an attack really on american people and american jobs. he seems to be at war with america. he does not bant to -- want to really help the oil and gas industry become environmentally safe, it seems to me he wants to kill it and the effort will kill american jobs, kill our energy and kill our national security. the video also shows he is not
concerned about real science, not about true environmental science, or really the facts. he just hates the oil and gas industry. so, madam speaker, he needs to go. he needs to be replaced with someone that cares more about the environment than personal crusades against industry. and at this time, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have in the record a "forbes" article that was published today regarding the e.p.a. official that i just mentioned. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: i'm going to continue my comments about america's energy by talking a little bit about gasoline. and gasoline prices. i asked members, people back in texas, in southeast texas, where i live, how rising gasoline prices have affected them personally. and i want to give the house the benefit of some of those statements made by american
people about the high cost of gasoline. and maybe some things that we can do about high costs of gasoline. here's what they have said. and i'll take them one at a time. one individual from southeast texas said, i spend more money on gasoline than i do on groceries. another, living in texas requires driving greater distances to get anything. we have no choice but to purchase gas and it definitely cuts into our food budget. you see, madam speaker, west of the mississippi there are vast places as the speaker knows where people roam and live in rural areas and it takes them a long time to get from point a to point b. especially when they're going to work sometimes. whether they work on the ranch or whether they work in small towns in america. and so because of that greater distance, a lot of americans don't realize that the only mode of transportation for some americans is to drive a vehicle.
that's how they get to work. they don't drive subways, they don't ride bicycles, they don't have the opportunity to walk to work because they live in the vastness of the west. i'll continue. 70% of all businesses requires people to have discretionary income that's being siphoned off by higher gas, taxes, fees and it's only getting worse because of high gasoline prices. i continue, another says, as a retiree, high gasoline prices affects everything i do. travel, possible vacation plans are no longer being discussed and our family -- in our family, anything i do is planned well so as to cut down on how much i drive. what i buy because it is priced so high in the stores. the price in stores has tripled because stores are having to pay higher fuel prices to get their market or get their products to market. another one says, i drive for 11
and it -- a ford 11 and it hurts. i continue, another texan has written me and said, i drive 170 miles round trip to work every day. i work for the corps of engineers and the government doesn't give me one red cent for gasoline. it costs me $900 a month for gasoline. that i used to could use somewhere else. amazing number, $900. that's -- in some cases that's how much people pay on their rent for their house or apartment. yet we have one american doing thinks job, working for the people of this country, spending that much money just on gasoline. another individual wrote me and he said, i can't afford to commute. but by my long hours as a business owner, it makes it impossible to take mass transit or carpool so i have no alternative, since i have no carpool, no mass transits, but i
have to drive to get to work because i'm a business owner. and the gasoline is driving me out of business. another one has said, i drive 75 miles a day round trip for work. plus i pay $7 in tolls. yeah, it's hurting. i love my job, but it's getting to the point that what money i make is going straight back into the gas tank. another citizen has said, i drive a 2000 ford f-150 as a work vehicle. it's draining my wallet but i need a full-sizesed truck for my job. once again, in the west a lot of folks drive pickup trucks. they don't just drive them to work, that is their work vehicle. they use that in their job. it is their office. they don't have the luxury as some do to work in tall sky scrapers in an office as we consider an office. their truck is their vehicle. and f-150's is the standard
operating vehicle at least in texas and other parts of the country. by the way, it's the number one selling vehicle in the united states. but americans need to understand, and the government needs to understand, that's what americans drive, that is their work vehicle in many cases. and high gasoline prices affects their quality of life and may be we as a body ought to do something about gasoline that is now $4 a gallon. . another citizen told me, last month i spent $600 on gas for my truck, versus $300 a few years ago. customers don't understand that suppliers are raising the costs to recoup the loss due to fuel prices that are skyrocketing for them. and that's correct. what we pay at the grocery store or at any store where we
do business for a product, part of the cost of the product is getting it to market so americans can buy it. it's costing more to get goods and services to market because gasoline prices. and of course, gasoline prices affect the price of goods and therefore that is passed on to the consumer, to people in america, who live here. another one says, where do i begin? i hated it but i had to go from a fore runner to a corolla to handle my commute to work every day. another one says, since 2002, my food bill has gone from $95 a week, for a full cart of groceries, i suspect, to $130 per week for half a cart of grocery. we are making more but keeping less. high gasoline prices affect misquality of life. another one says, i have spent less on food so i can fill up three times a week at approximately $75 to $80 a
tank. another citizen wrote me his concerns. i had to find another job closer to home because it's getting ridiculous, the cost of gasoline. an individual who uses his truck in his business said this -- i drive a hot shot delivery truck and i have to pay my own fuel. we do get a fuel surcharge but it does not even come close to paying for the fuel. i spend $200 to $250 a week on fuel over what the surcharge pays me and it's killing me. that's what americans are saying about gasoline prices. these are people who work every day, support their families, yet gasoline affects them in personal ways. another individual told me, wrote me, about his religion. his -- his religion is being affected, his religious commitment is being affected by the cost of gasoline. here's what he says. because the church my family
attends is 30 minutes away, we've chosen to attend wednesday night services closer to home and had to give up two meetings during the week. it's upsetting having people ask me on sunday if i've left the church. and it's hard to maintain the close relationships. it's all due to high gas prices. another southeast texan write this is, we certainly have less disposable income, that means less to spend in various businesses in our city, because of the high cost it cost misfamily to buy gasoline. another one says this. i have cut out everything extra, dine out less, fewer trip, stay at home for entertainment, prices of food have tripled and i stretch leftovers as far as possible.
because of gas prices. another citizen and neighbor said, i only drive where i have to. i shop at croger to get extra cents off gas. the kroger grocery store gives people a deduction if they buy gasoline from kroger and they have a little kroger card. we just stay at home more than ever. and a fisherman says this -- i am a commercial fisherman. gas prices hurt at the pump and it has in turn driven up the prices for supplies and it's driven up the price and cost of bait. another one lastly says this, make this is comment, it's just hard to make it these days because of high gas prices system of gasoline prices, which -- we're not talking a whole lot about now, some americans have just accepted it as the new normal. i refuse to do that. i refuse to accept high gasoline prices. i'm old enough to remember when gas lean costs, i don't want to shock the speaker, because you're a whole lot younger than
i am, but i remember when i could fill up my chevy two super sport in the 1970's for 20 cents a gallon. i know that shocks you. but gasoline prices have gone up. in my generation, when gasoline hit 30 cents a felon, we all were shocked about it. and now we're paying $4 a gallon. we don't have to accept that. and the reason we don't have to accept it is because sitting over here are america's natural resources. our god-given natural resources. just waiting to be developed. but as i mentioned earlier, we got these bureaucrats down the street in their martial -- marble palaces called the e.p.a. and they regulate more than just light bulbs, they're regulating the oil and gas industry out of business. i think it's a personal vendetta they have for some reason. so there are things we should do, things we can do, and it's important that we discuss those. and we'll continue to discuss those tonight with my
colleagues. i do want to yield some time to my friend and colleague, mr. burton from indiana, for such time as he wishes to consume. mr. burton: i want to thank my good friend, conman poe of texas, for putting a face on the problem of high energy prices and high gasoline prices. i mean, i listened to all the things you were reading there if if -- from your constituents about not being able to go to work or buying huge amounts of gas two or three times a week and it just break yours heart. then people think, you know, i went to the store the other night, and i bought two oranges. they were on sale. they were $1 apiece. two oranges, $1 apiece. the reason for that is not just because they're growing them and it's costing more, it's because the transportation by diesel trucks and gasoline-powered trucks has gone up so much that they have
to pass that on to the consumers with high prices. if you talk to any man or woman who goes to the store, they'll tell you they're feeling it when they buy their groceries, as well as at the gas pump. i'd like to tell you a little story real quick, you'll find this humorous, because you talked about gasoline being 20 cent cents when you were a little bit younger, i presume it was a little bit younger. we were on a trip with some friends of ours, we went do an irand down off the coast of florida in the caribbean this friend of mine, we rented two motorcycles, little motor scooters to go out to the corn of -- corner of the island and gasolined on the island was high, 50-cents a glofpble he said i'm not paying 50 cents a gallon in gasoline. so we ran out of gasoline and we had to get a coffee fan and turn one cycle upside down to get back, we couldn't get mine
turned back on. he tried to pull me and my motorcycle with my wife on the back with a string back to the hotel where we were staying. we couldn't do it. it about broke my finger off. they left me at a portuguese gasoline station where nobody spoke english my face was burned to a pulp from the sun and i ended up not getting back until late that night with about a third degree burn because he wouldn't pay 50-cent farce gallon of gas. imagine what he would think today having to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. poor guy would just die. let me look at this chart. my colleague was talking a moment ago, i wish all the people in america, if i could talk to them, could see this chart. i it -- it shows that back in the early part of the obama administration, gasoline was $2.6 a gallon. now in some parts of the country it's over $4 a gallon. it's killing the economy. it's killing people who have to
go to work, as congressman poe said, and we have the resources to deal with it. the thing i wanted to talk about real quickly was, and i talked to congressman poe about this, the interior secretary, mr. salazar, as well as thed of the e.p.a. and energy department, are having an all-out assault on members of congress who are pointing out that we have energy in this country that can be tapped to lower the price of energy, but they're attacking us saying that we're just raising red herrings and not dealing with the problems as we should. i want to read this. mr. salazar, the head of the interior department, says, it's in in this imagined energy -- in this imagined energy world where we see this growing divide in america. but it's not between ordinary americans, it's between some people in washington, i guess they mean you and me, congressman poe a divide between the real energy world we work in every day and the
imagined fairy tale world. and the president of the united states has said on a number of occasions that we're doing more drilling right now than we ever have and that the american people are being misled. so in addition to the chart i have on gasoline prices, i brought this chart down this chart, congressman poe, shows the number of aply cages for permits to drill and how they've been affected since the obama administration has taken place. i want to go through these facts. if the president were paying attention and i were talking to him, but i know i can't, but if i were talking to him, i would say, these are the facts. i don't know who is giving you your facts at the white house but mr. president, you ought to take a look at these facts because they're accurate. first of all, according to the american petroleum institute, the number of new permits to drill issued by the bureau of land management is down by 40%. down by 40% from an average of
over 6,400 permits in 2007 and 2008 to an average of 3,962 in 2009 to 2010. that's down by almost 40%. so we're not drilling where we can. they're not issuing the permits. during this same period, the number of new wells drilled on federal land have declined, gone down, the number of oil wells have gone down by 40%. and the number of new federal oil and gas leases issued by the bureau of land management is down by almost 50%. so is it any wonder we're not going after our resources? we're depending on the saudis, people in south america and venezuela, many of whom don't like us very much and as a result we're paying more and more and more at the pump. president obama says oil production is at an all-time high in his administration. however, the fact is, oil production on federal land fell by 11% last year and oil
production on private and state-owned land, where they couldn't touch it, did go up a little bit, an that's what he's talking about, where the government has control over permits, they're not letting us drill. federal lands, federal lands hold an estimated 116 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for 65 billion cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. western oil shale deposits alone are estimated to contain up to five times the amount of saudi oil reserves. 70% of this oil shale is on federal land and we can't get to it because the president and his administration will not let us. according to a recent c.r.s. report, there are over 21.6 million acres of land leased by the federal government not currently producing oil or who have not been approved for exploration.
returning to the levels of 2007 and 2008, when the administration started, federal leasing and permitting levels would have projected an increase of seven million to 13 million barrels per year of domestic oil production but they cut it back. according to the american petroleum institute and this estimated 12,000 to 30,000 american jobs would be created in energy producing western states over the next four years if we just went back to where we were drilling in 2007 and 2008. furthermore, the keystone x.l. pipeline, which the president has stopped, stopped it dead, it would bring to our economy thousands of new jobs and transport 830,000 barrel barrels of oil to american refineries which would be converted into oil and gasoline that would help this economy. and lower gas prices. with gas prices, as my colleague said very, very, very high, over $4 a demron and in some places here in washington
up to $5 a gallon, not too long ago. with gas prices that high and affecting every american, it's clear the united states needs to become more energy independent and signal to the world that the u.s. is open to production and if we started drilling where we can and exploring where we can, make no -- make no mistake, the people who sell oil to us will low they are price because they want to be competitive and they don't want to lose market share, whether it's the administration dragging its heels on improve -- approving permit for offshore trilling, not opening up land for exploration or not approve thelling keystone pipeline this administration, the obama administration's policies are failing every day -- are failing everyday americans and costing millions in potential government rev mue and thousands of new jobs. no matter what the administration people are saying, like mr. salazar or the e.p.a. or the energy department, the fact is, we have enough energy in this country to move toward energy
independence over the next five to 10 year bus this administration wants to go to new sources of energy like windmills and solar panels and geothermal and nuclear and all those things are important but while we're starting to transition to new sources of energy, we need to use the energy that we have, which would low they are cost of energy to the average citizen and low they are eprice of gasoline so people, as mr. poe has said, could get to work and live a confident, fair, friendly life. with that, mr. poe, thank you so much for giving me this time. i'm a big admirer of yours, buddy. mr. poe: thank you for your comments, i appreciate the gentleman from indiana, several comments about what you said, it's important. the administration, the government says, drilling is up in the united states. that is true. but drilling on federal lands is not up. mr. burton: down is -- down 11%. mr. poe: the drilling is taking
place on state-owned property or private-owned property but not federal lands. if it weren't for that drilling would be down in the united states. we go back to the gulf of mexico. the same situation we have in the gulf of mexico ever since the b.p. incident. permitting is taking too long. it takes a record amount of days, sometimes months, to issue a permit. in the deepwater and in the shallow water, in the shallow water, guys operate with a very small amount of capital. they can't stay and wait around for the government to make a decision on a permit or not so they aren't able to drill. in the deep water, those deepwater wells, those rigs, they cost $100,000 a day. whether they're operating or they're sitting there. and that's why some of them have left the gulf of mexico to never return. they've gone down to south america, they've gone to africa, off the coast of africa, to drill where countries are more
friendly or friendlier to the drilling safely off of their coasts. mr. burton: if i might. if the gentleman would yield. we sent $3 billion of american taxpayer money at a time when we have almost a $16 trillion national debt, we sent it to brazil and they're drilling in deepwater areas like we would be drilling in off the coast of mexico. but we can't drill there because of the oil spill and because we can't get permits. so we're sending our taxpayers' dollars down to brazil so they can do what we can't. mr. poe: if the gentleman would yield. we're not only sending money down there, to develop their oil industry, when they develop it, we're going to buy their oil back. so we're paying them twice. mr. burton: that's right. mr. poe: which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. now, i don't know, and i don't really suspect that drilling would be the only answer for raising or lowering the gasoline prices, but it's one factor.
because of supply and demand. it's not the only factor, but it's one of those. and it just seems to me that the united states is the only major power in the world that has an energy policy that is, we're not going to drill in the united states for all these reasons. but we want you to drill in your country, your natural resources, and we'll buy them from you. that seems a little bit arrogant on my part -- on our part as a nation. and i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. burton: let me just say that sarah palin, whom everybody in this country knows, she will tell you as she's told people all across the country when she speaks that they have a huge amount of oil in the anwr and other parts of alaska. and because of the environmentalists, the radical environmentalist groups in this country, they can't drill up there. now, i've been up there. i was up there with don young and we saw the oil pipeline and if you look at the anwr, there's nothing up there.
you're not going to hurt any of the animals, there's a lot of bugs, there's a lot of virmen up there, but you're not going -- vermen up there, but you're not going to hurt the animals by drilling up there and it won't hurt the environment, but it would help if we could bring that oil, millions of barrels of oil, down to the lower 48 states. it would have a tremendous impact in my opinion, as well as you said off the gulf of mexico and off the continental shelf. we could really move toward energy independence over a period of the next five to 10 years. like you said, it wouldn't happen immediately. but it would be a giant step in the right direction. mr. poe: if the gentleman would yield. as you mentioned about anwr and alaska, years ago we came up with this idea of a pipeline from alaska, bringing crude oil into the united states. and the same people that opposed that pipeline still exist today and are opposing the keystone pipeline. it took years for the vetting of
the environmental lobby to finally be put to rest. i mean, they were concerned about the caribou, of course i think the caribou are doing quite well now. and finally congress decided not to wait on the -- that administration and go ahead and make an approval, but congress went ahead and approved the alaska pipeline on its own which became law. in spite of the administration. didn't wait for its approval. and now we know the rest of the story. it's a success 25 years later and that's what congress needs to do with the keystone pipeline. the canadians, no one's ever accused canada of being environmentally insensitive. their regulations are as tough as the e.p.a.'s or even stronger but yet they've developed a way that they can bring crude oil through a pipeline down to southeast texas,port arthur, my district, in a safe environment way and also one of the newest and finest pipelines but the
administration says, not so fast. and it's unfortunate. because the jobs would stay in america, create that pipeline. canada is not a middle eastern dictatorship. they're kind of a normal country. and we should approve that as soon as possible. i understand the concern in nebraska. i'm glad to see that the folks in nebraska are working with the transcanada to reroute that 60 miles so there is no environmental issues and get this pipeline approved and start shipping that crude oil down to southeast texas so we can use it in the united states. and it would seem to me that the united states should maybe think about this type of energy policy. that we should drill safely in the united states for oil and natural gas and i say safely because that is important. but we should also partner with the country's next -- chris next to us. the canadians to the north, who have natural resources, and the mexicans to the south, who have an abundance of natural
resources, and the three of us work together on a north american opec-type philosophy. and be energy independent. not just energy independent, but it will help our national security. and if we do that, if we work with canada, mexico, drill in the united states where it's safe, we can make the middle east irrelevant. we can make that little fella from the desert, ahmadinejad, and his threats about closing the straits of hormuz, we make him irrelevant, we don't care what he does. and we don't need to continue to send our money to other nations over there that don't like us. so, maybe that's something we need to do in the united states. and lastly, and i'll yield to the gentleman, because of american technology, because of those folks that know how to drill safely for oil and natural gas, united states now suddenly is becoming an abundant nation with natural gas. and we could, if we developed
it, the way that we can, the united states, primarily texas, but other states, we could become the saudi arabia of natural gas. we could export natural gars -- gas. we have so much of it. and then bring that money into the united states, rather than constantly sending money throughout the world all because we don't take care of what we have and use what we have. i yield to the gentleman. mr. burton: t. boone pickens and everybody knows he's one of the advocates of natural gas which is a clean burning fuel, he said, if we would convert the tractor trailer units that bring commerce to all of us, he said we could lower the cost for all those tractor trailer units as far as energy consumption is concerned by 50%. cut it in two. and that would have a dramatic impact on things that are transported by tractor trailer units. and i'd just like to say that the president, when he took office, and i'll conclude with this because you've done such a
good job tonight, you cover very well, but the president when he took office, he said that his energy policies would of necessity cause energy costs to skyrocket. well, as ronald reagan would say, well, he did. and energy prices have skyrocketed. and we've got to do something about it. the american people don't want to pay $4 or $5 for a gallon of gasoline. they can't live that way. it's causing a deterioration in their standard of living. and so if i were talking to the president, and i know i can't, madam speaker, but if i were talking to him i'd say, mr. president, why don't you get with the program? the american people really need your help. and if you don't pay attention to them, regarding the energy policies, it's my humble opinion that there may be a big change in administrations next year. so for political survivability alone, you ought to take another look at what you're doing. and with that i thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for his participation and, madam
speaker, it seems to me that the united states can make some decisions and solve some of our own problems and we can start with finding people in the e.p.a. that are not having their own personal vendetta against the oil and gas industry, we place those individuals and get some fair and balanced bureaucrats to make sure we have a clean environment to work with our energy companies rather than against them. and stop the war against the energy companies in the u.s. and we can work and bring down the price of energy in these united states. one way, not the only way, is to make sure that we have a supply -- a greater supply, as we all know, of anything does help reduce the cost of energy. so that people in southeast texas who have a hard time getting to work, who are paying more for products that they have to buy, just like americans throughout our nation are having tough times because of high
gasoline prices, we owe it to them to do that. to take care of ourselves and to work with canada, work with mexico so that the three countries can be a strong ally and not just politically, but we can be strong allies with our energy economy. and with that i'll yield back to the chair and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 25 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. fortenberry: thank you, madam speaker. as i was shopping for some family items recently, i noted how difficult it is to find items that are made in america. while america manufacturing is encouragingly enough on the rebound, products ranging from
hair brushes to ipods still carry that made in china label. all the while many questions about china and its economic policies, foreign policies, and human rights records, are left largely unexamined. for the good of our economy, it is essential that we thoroughly understand china's record and their intentions as a country. our nations have a complicated and lopsided economic relationship. americans buy great quantities of chinese-made products. china finances a great portion of america's debt. currently nearly 1/3 of our debt is foreign-owned with china easily being the largest debt holder at nearly $1.2 trillion. other estimates peg the figure at closer to $2 trillion. the effect of such indebtedness is the shift of our wealth assets into the hands of a foreign nation, losing the market for american-made products to a country with lax labor and environmental standards which manipulates its currency and creates unbalanced
and unfair trading conditions. china's involvement on the world stage is also of significant concern. while it aggressively pursues its own agenda, china lends little constructive hand to create conditions for international stability. china is seen as an enabler of north korea, who is actively pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities. and they continue on their march toward more aggressive missile testing as well, despite the protest of the international community. over recent months, as the u.s. and european union have accelerated important efforts to curb iran's nuclear ambition, china has been conspicuously absent from the leadership table in this discussion. china continues to be a top buyer of iranian oil, one of the key leverage points of economic sanctions against iran. at a discussion i attended,
chinese officials in so many words said, the u.s. is so blame for iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. and he went on to say that while china does not desire that outcome, we're going to do business as usual. africa is becoming a lost continent diplomatically and economically, in favor of international players mo do not -- who do not have the same regards to human rights as we do. china's influence in resource-rich africa is growing rapidly with disturbing consequences. direct chinese investment in africa has grown exponentially over the last two years. one million chinese nationals now do business in africa and chinese energy and mineral resource companies are quickly acquiring oil fields and mines. and the process china has forged strategic alliances with war criminals. china shares, quote, a deep and
profound friendship with sudanese war criminal omar al-bashir. i should note there was a bright spot this week. when approached by south sudanese president for assistance as sudan and south sudan marched toward war, china's president echoed the united states in calling for peace in negotiation between the two countries rather than continuing to back omar al-bashir. the international community will look upon china's new role as a diplomatic figure in this conflict with great interest. beyond this, an honest discussion is necessary about chinese industrial virtues. a chinese official said dealing with differences in corporate culture and the degree of openness to the outside world, chinese companies always take domestic business practices with them. chinese companies always take domestic business practices with them.
those practices, according to witnesses who have given congressional testimony, include fertility monitors on factory floors, invasively examining female employees for pregnancy and reporting pregnant women to the chinese family planning police. china has practiced the violence of forced abortion. china also has tragically -- also has tragically high suicide rays for workers who use suicide as their only means of collective bargaining against dire and oppressive labor conditions. as china continues to advance as a world economic power, it has a choice. it can join the responsible community of nations in respecting the dignity of all persons while conducting affairs with other nations in an ethical fashion or stand by and exploit relationships to fuel its own brand of corporate
collectivism, undermining international stability in the process. madam speaker, it is my belief that it is important to seek reasonable and good relationships with china, a country with a rich cultural history, a country which is rapidly ascending onto the world stage. we must do so ideally and practically for the sake of our own national security. but we must do so with open eyes, fully understanding the implications when all of us buy products with that made in china label. madam speaker, i yield back to the chair the plans of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, the gentleman from georgia.
the gentleman from georgia, under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 18 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i thank you for the time and being down here with me. had to set up my chart tonight, i can't commit it all to memory. i'm glad to be here at the end of the leadership hour, we've talked about china, we've talked about u.s. energy, we've talked about the big issues on the floor of this house and here in washington, d.c. and i want to say to folks, i come from a conservative part of the world, i come from the deep south, i come from the suburbs
of atlanta, but i brought with me tonight quotes from president barack obama because as i have said in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, i disagree with 80% of the president does, but i agree with 80% of what he says. let me show you what i have here. this is from his 2011 inaugural address. at stake right now is not who wins the next election, at stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country or somewhere else. that is absolutely true. folks come down to the floor of this house every day they say what they're doing, they're doing for job creation. they say what they're doing, they're doing for economic deprothe. but we have a substantial disagreement about what that means. i happen to believe that one of the things that encourages job creation and economic growth is fiscal responsibility. we need fiscal responsibility in our families, in our
businesses and we need it in our government. the president said this, madam speaker. his state of the union address in 2010, he said families across the country are tightening their belts, making tough decisions the -- tighting their belts and making tough decisions. the federal government should do the same. state of the union address in 2010. i'm not cherry picking comments, here we are in his state of the union address in 2011. every day families sacrifice to live within their mean, they deserve a government that does the same. he said it in 2010, he said it in 2011. in fact, go back to the beginning of his presidency. here we are in 2009. same state of the union address. given these realities, everyone this chamber, democrats and republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. and that includes me. madam speaker, he was right there in front of where you sit tonight he said, given these realities, everyone in this
chamber must sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars, and that includes me. the president of the united states. but what's the reality? we can put the words back up, we can put the words frup 2009, 2010, 2011, but what's the reality? the reality, sadly, is this chart. you can't see it from where you are, madam speaker, but it's a chart from "the wall street journal" entitled the debt boom. it charts the public debt of the united states from the year 2000 to 2012 and what we see is as a percent of g.d.p., it was entirely too high in the bush year, don't get me wrong, there's not a party in town that is blameless in this debate. for pete's sake we were having economic boom times and our debt was 35% of g.d.p. 35% of all the economy of the united states of america was
being borrowed in debt. but look what happens. look what happens. president obama is sworn in in january of 2009. you see a debt boom where we rise from 35% of g.d.p. as our debt level, up to 80% of g.d.p. as our debt level. now again, i can put the words back up. time for sacrifice. families are tightening their belts, we must do the same. everyone must sacrifice priorties, including me, the president of the united states. i can put the words back up but the reality is the president has continued to promote spending with reckless abandon. it's not just in the debt. madam speaker, this chart is a chart produced by the budget committee, on which i have the privilege of serving. what it charts is the debt of the united states, we see it on the white dotted line here, it charts the proposed plan of president barack obama. you know, the president to his credit, introduced a budget in
january the law requires him to do it, and he did it. he has every year that he's been in office. the law requires the senate to produce a budget every year, they ignore that law, have again this year for the third time in a row, but the president produced his budget. i can go back to where he talks about sacrifice and tightening his belt and talks about what american families are doing and they deserve a government that does the same thing. but look at this chart this represents the current debt path of america. the red line represents the president's proposal from february of this year. if you look closely, madam speaker, what you can see is that under the president's proposal, of february of this year, enacting the president's proposal raises the deficit of the united states year after year after year after year, 2012, 2013, o2014, 2015, 2016, 201, 2018, 2019, 2020, more
than doing nothing. you ask how can that be true? it includes $2 trillion in new taxes on american families. that's true. that's true. the president has made no secret of his desire to work our way through our current economic crisis by taxing the american people. i don't believe that's the right way to go but he's introduced that as a plan and yes, his budget raises taxes by $2 trillion, but he spends so much more that even with the $2,000 tax increase, madam speaker, we don't see any improvement in our debt in 2013 or 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021. i've blown up, just so folks can see it way out there in 2022, you finally begin to see a better debt traject from the president's budget than if we'd done nothing. nine years from now, america would have a slightly lower
deficit under the president's plan than if we did nothing and just left all of our systems on auto pilot. that doesn't jive with what we heard. can i go back to the beginning, madam speaker? at stake is not who wins the election, at stake is new jobs, new jobs that come with fiscal responsibility, go back to the state of the union address, families across the country are tightening their belts, the federal government should do the same, madam speaker, there's not one tough decision made when you tax the american people by $2 trillion but you spend even more. i believed the president. i believe the president when he said, given these realities, everyone in this chamber, republicans and democrats, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. he was right when he said that. that was an applause line. folks got to their feet here in
the chamber. he's right, his that sacrifice is necessary, his budget includes none of it. the good news, though, madam speaker, is we're not limited to the president's ideas in this town. we have a freshman class here in washington, d.c., madam speaker, which you are a critical part of, that says we can do better. in fact, we must do better. in fact, we cannot take no for an answer. let me show you what i have here, madam speaker. it's a chart of discretionary appropriations. discretionary appropriations for folks in the freshman class, that's the part we have to affirmatively act on every year. it's about 2/3 of the -- about 2/3 of the federal budget is on auto pilot. if we closed the doors of congress, that money would flow out the door. but not so with one third of the budget, that's discretionary spending and we
have the responsibility to do oversight on that. f.y. 2010, we spent about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. that was 2010, you and i were not here, madam speaker. you and i showed up, we were still working on the f.y. 2011 budget. we spent willess in this congress, i don't just mean we proposed spending less, i don't mean we talked about spending less, i don't mean we got together as republicans and said, this is our idea but we don't get the democrats to go along with it, i mean as a body in this house, as a congress on capitol hill, with the cooperation of the president's signature, we actually passed into law a budget for discretionary spending that went down in 2011 from 2010 levels. guess what, we didn't stop there, madam speaker. we passed another set of appropriations bills that took the spending down even further from 2011 levels, we went down
further in 2012 and guess what, this freshman class, we're not done yet this house leadership, they're not done yet. for 2013, we are on track to reduce spending, i don't mean reduce rates of growth. i don't mean reduce projected increases. i mean reduce the actual dollars going out the door. for a third year in a row. the third year in a row. it's unprecedented. hasn't happened since world war ii. and it's happened because the american people said, we have to do better. it happened because the american people said, we can't just talk about it. we have to do it. but i've got some bad news, madam speaker. we're going to keep working on this discretionary spending side of the ledger. we're going to keep trying to drive those numbers down, but that's not where the real spending is. as i said a few minutes ago, that's only a third of the budget. 2/3 of the budget is on auto pilot. i have it up here, madam speaker, in yellow, you see
what they call mandatory spending. that's the auto pilot money. again, you could close the white house tomorrow, you could close the congress tomorrow, this money still flows out the door. if we're going to stop it we have to act affirmatively to stop it. this little piece of the pie up here is the defense part, you would think that national security is one of the biggest things we spend money on around here. madam speaker, it's down to less than 20% of the money that goes out the door in washington, d.c. goes toward national security. 17% here is everything else. everything else that's in that discretionary budget. the 63%, 64%, so said the congressional budget office,s the mandatory spending that's on auto pilot. i have it displayed here in a slightly different way, the red bar represents discretionary spending. you can see that discretionary spending as a per centage of the budget, as a per centage of the --