tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 21, 2012 9:00am-2:00pm EDT
being anti-discriminatory. how do we let the government get away with discriminating against income? thank you. guest: that is a difficult question. i do not know that we are discriminating. if the caller's definition of discrimination is that there is a federal income-tax, he is right, but, you know, that was a constitutional amendment in the early 1900's and we have had an income tax since then. host: joe barton from texas, thank you for being with us. guest: always my pleasure. make sure that the callers are registered to vote in vote regardless of their political affiliation. democracy works when the people work. and the of a privilege in a dimar arces for the people to exercise their constitutional right to vote. host: thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] caller: business is scheduled to
get under way in the house in just a moment. the senate also scandal to be in session today in what is likely to be the last day before congress returns after the november 6 election. a reminder, this week and on c- span2, live coverage of the national book festival. at the mall here in washington. you can check out the complete schedule online at booktv.org. and c-span.org. enjoy the rest of your friday. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of all creation, we give you thanks for giving us another day. on this day the people's house concludes its business. members return to their congressional districts.
an election to determine those who would serve this nation as members of congress lies before us all. there are many energies which divide this house. there are many voices throughout our nation vying for the attention of any who would listen. please bless our nation and those who leave this chamber for the oncoming and ongoing campaign. grant that there be more light than heat, more charity than em nity, more wisdom than ignorance. our great nation has had many fits and starts but many try universities as well. in the -- triumphs as well. in the weeks that come, nay your grace come to all citizens engaged in the affairs of our time. may we be mindful of needs
beyond our own and united to work together for beater future for these united states. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. ms. schakowsky: thank you for the honor, mr. speaker. i invite those in the gallery to join us. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina
rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, as we enter the final stages of this election cycle, the american people have a choice for change, promoting women to government with the expanded freedom or big government with power to politicians. a key issue is job creation. i support the bipartisan initiatives of john f. kennedy and ronald reagan of cutting taxes which enables the private sector to create jobs. president obama has enacted failed policies of borrow, tax and spend, producing 43 months of unemployment over 8%. new jobs could be created with an all-of-the-above energy policy, but president obama promised skyrocketing energy costs, doubling gas prices. beater course would be to develop the keystone pipeline with our number one ally, canada. the contrast on national defense is clear. we should stand for peace through strength that ronald
reagan, president obama's policies to hallow out our military reveals weakness. my constituents are heart broken at the tragedy of our ambassador to libya being murdered and his body being desecrated by terrorists. in conclusion, god bless america and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: the house is scheduled to adjourn for six weeks with no plans to come back into session until november. on behalf of the hardworking rhode islanders i serve i rise to express my deep disappointment that the house republican leadership is choosing to adjourn and abandon the middle class when so much work is left to be done. in my home state, nearly 60,000 men and women cannot find work. more than 50,000 homes have mortgages that are underwater. but instead of working to pass a comprehensive jobs plan, provide relief to homeowners or
passing the middle class tax cuts, house republicans want to take the next six weeks off. today's action by the republican leadership is a failure of their responsibility to lead, and i urge them to reconsider and agree to working together in a bipartisan way to address the urgent issues facing our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, americans continue to look for work, put food on the table and ensure their children have school supplies as fall comes into full swing, yet the house is set to leave washington today with many items on its to-do list. while congress works to finish up to pass a budget to fund the federal government, catastrophic cuts loom on the horizon set to hit january,
2013. mr. wittman: leaving these cuts is unconshenable. it's not the right thing to do. our all-volunteer force is at war and these cuts threaten our national security. furthermore, they threaten over 200,000 jobs in virginia. nine days remain before the new fiscal year begins. congress should do the right thing and stay in washington instead of ignoring the reality and delaying tough decisions. it's time to put governing over politics. let's stay in washington and finish the job that we were elected and expected to do. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition in mr. kucinich: good morning, mr. speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: the stop the war on coal act is up today. it is the coal industry which is waging war on our mountains
by leveling them, war on our lungs by burning dirty fuel. war on children by the single largest mercury exposure. filling our water with toxic waste. poisonous ash fills. war on its workers which it continues to kill. relentlessly reducing jobs. war on our national debt by taking billions of subsidies and now war on ratepayers of municipal utilities across the mid west. time to stop this war. there is shady deals that put 216 local utilities here across the midwest and billions of dollars of energy they may never even get while playing twice the market price. a corrupt boondoggle that will raise utility rates and saddle many publicly own utilities with crushing debt obligations. congress must stand up for the
utility customers in these areas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor an outstanding student athlete from the university of tennessee at chattanooga. competing at the u.s. amateur championship in colorado, u.t.c. student steven fox came from behind to win the first usga championship for the university of tennessee at chattanooga. down by two holes on the par 5 17th hole, steven made a clutch birdie and managed to make a great par putting the match into sudden death after 36 grueling holes. at the first playoff hole, steven sunk a critical 18-foot putt to secure his victory. his win is an inspiration to the entire u.t.c. community and
all tennesseans. we want to mention the great u.t.c. golf team which achofede national success at the leadership of the coach. thanks to the hard work and former athletic director and chancellor, u.t.c. qualified for this year's ncaa championship in los angeles. in pliesmann: on behalf of all east -- mr. fleischmann: on behalf of all east tennesseans, i want to congratulate steven fox. i look forward to many future successes at u.t.c. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. schwartz: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. ms. schwartz: we've seen economic recovery over the past four years but we have work to do. the fiscal policies that end this year present a rare
opportunity to set aside politics and find common ground to reduce our nation's deficit in a balanced and fiscal responsible manner. but action must be based on our priorities and means strengthening the middle class and building economic opportunity. it means spending cuts and new revenues. we will need to make tough choices, but there is a path forward if we are fair, if we are committed to obligations to our seniors and children and if we recognize the importance of strategic investments to grow our economy now and into the future. i was proud to be one of just 38 members to support a bipartisan proposal by representatives cooper and latourette which included tax reform and spending cuts to reduce the nation's deficit. let's move our country forward by taking responsible, meaningful and timely action. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute.
mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. it's time for americans to know the truth about the abuse of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, especially at a time when the president's calling for tax increases. the issue i'm talking about is i.r.s. action that puts billions of taxpayer dollars at risk. currently the i.r.s. allows individuals without a social security number to get cash benefits. like the $1,000 refundable child tax credit which is costing the american taxpayers billions of dollars. by obtaining an individual taxpayer identityification number or -- identification number or i-10. there was a shocking scandal within the i.r.s. that encouraged employees to fast track i-10 approval without without regard to preventing fraud. it has been a ticket to get cash from uncle sam and that is wrong. i'm introducing the i-10 reform act to hold the i.r.s. feet to
the fire to better protect the american taxpayer and i urge all my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition without objection, the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, on august 3, 1962, a life-changing decision was made by dr. denton cooly and the founding of the texas heart institute. as i listened to the words said this morning, he chose wisdom over ignorance with respect to diagnosising cardiovascular disease, the most devastating killer of americans killing a life every 33 seconds, 2,600 lives each day and nearly one million lives each year. dr. cooly was honored this past week with tributes from presidents george bush and president william jefferson
clinton. over the years, he has been able to help men and women and children. he's done a magnificent job with respect to the amount of surgeries that have been performed. he performed more than 118,000 open heart operations, 258,000 cardiac cattryization and 1,270 heart transplants. the texas heart institute, along with st. luke's hospital, continues to serve the world and continues to do research to improve the lives of those who suffer from heart disease. dr. james willerson is the new c.e.o. his demeanor and temperament, his research abilities, his leadership has taken this great institution to the 21st century. what a great honor to be with those who honored dr. denton cooly for his wisdom and for his ability to challenge medical profession, science to be able to save lives. today children lives, families are reunited and we are stronger in our health because
of the existence of the texas heart institute. it's my privilege to congratulate them for 50 years of saving lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the more than 83,000 americans still listed as missing in action or prisoners of war. mr. miller: today is national pow-mia recognition today. i want to bring attention to the efforts made by the joint pow-mia account and command to recover and return home to their families our unaccounted for service members. also, let us recognize groups such as rolling thunder, the vietnam veterans of america, the american ex-prisoners of war, the national league of pow-mia families and numerous others who ensure those who remain missing are never forgotten and our nation remembers their sacrifice.
. this includes army private first class whatley of florida who was last seen on the 12th of july in 1950 in korea and is remembered by his brother matt. we salute the m.i.a.'s who have given to this nation more than we can repay. the united states will not rest until each is home and receive the proper burial on american soil. please offer a prayer for those who remain on the battlefields of the past and present and let us pledge that not one is left behind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: mr. speaker, this is constitution week when we celebrate our fundamental rights as americans. today once of the most cherished rights, the right to vote, is under serious attack. recrept efforts to suppress
voter participation are designed to silence the voice of american voters, especially seniors, people of color, the poor, and young adults. in florida, new restrictions on voter registration led the league of women voters to suspend their efforts until the law was halted by the court. republican legislatures have passed strict voter requirements. although pennsylvania could not provide even one example of voter fraud. even elderly veterans who risked their lives for our country, maybe -- may be turned away from the polls because they lack the proper i.d.'s. five million americans could be disenfranchised. anyone who values our constitution should encourage voting not erect barriers based on false claims of voter fraud. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may -- and include extraneous material on h.r. 3409. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 780 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3409. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the
committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3409 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to remitt the thorte of the secretary of the interior to issue regulations before december 31, 2013, under the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977. the chair: we in the committee of the whole rose on thursday, september 20, 2012, amendment number 7 printed in house report number 112-680, offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris, had opinion disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-680. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number 11-680, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. nies jackson lee: that ining the chairman very much. mr. chairman, this is an amendment that i believe common sense would allow us to work together and pass because this amendment would simply maintain the current deadline that existed under the previous administration of 90 days under the clean water act by striking section 503 of the bill which artificially limits agency comment period on water quality permit to 30 days with no possibility for extension. this existed under bush administration's administration. why then would my friends on the other side of the aisle not join with me and say let's have regular order. let's ensure that we give everyone the reasonable opportunity for -- and response on their quality of life. on the surface the intent of h.r. 3409 appears to be to prevent the interior department from revising a bush
administration midnight regulation that significantly weakened protection ops the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. let me remind you they did not alter the comment period. mountaintop removal mining, as many of us know, is a very challenging environmentally difficult process. for many they say it creates jobs. what we are trying to do is ensure there is a balance between that industry and as well the fairness of allowing those to be able to comment. as it's presently drafted, this bill would reach -- in fact it would make it much more difficult, if you will, to deal with the question of rule making. the people in the state of texas, the state of houston, appreciate the ability to drink cool, fresh matter. so does everyone else. and the idea of not being able to comment on the impact of this particular process is challenging.
and so i ask my colleagues to consider the importants of coming together and extending or going back to the 90-day comment period to balance, if you will, the time frame and to ensure that all are heard on any aspects that will impact the environment. impact the environment of this particular procedure. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i object and reserve my time. the chair: gentleman claim the time in opposition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: ok. i yield the gentleman one minute.
i'm yielding to the gentleman from florida for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to yet another bill that will never become law. another bill that feeds into the biggest problem we have here. the 112th congress has actually set a sad new low for our democratcy. we all know that president harry truman famously dubbed the 80th congress in 1948 as the do-nothing congress. if the do-nothing congress of 1948 has nothing on this one. that congress passed over 900 laws while the 112th congress has passed over 14u7bd. among the countless laws blocked by the republican majority is
the american jobs act, which economists say would create over 2.5 million jobs. it's a sad day when the main drag on america's economy is the house of representatives. you know, most americans actually have to earn their vacation days, mr. chairman. the only thing the republican congress has earned are abysmal approval ratings. the 112th congress puts harry truman's do-nothing congress to shame. and at a time when our economy should come first that, mr. chairman, is shameful. i rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to a bill that prevents us from actually accomplishing the real work the american people expect from us. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. mr. speaker, let me just clarify what is happening with this
legislation. it eliminates the e.p.a.'s authority to apply minimum federal water quality standards sufficient to protect human and aquatic life and it is weaker than state standards in many plates. it strips the e.p.a.'s authority to to respect -- state discharge permits that fail to meet clean water act requirements. this is not about creating jobs, mr. speaker. and i ask on the names of our children, yet unborn, to be able to have the quality of life and quality of water and quality of air that the requirement that they are trying to eliminate in this bill, the proponent of this bill, to the extent that they will now, the comment meered, to -- period to 308 days, rather than 90 days. why is that not a simple request that my good friend would not say, congresswoman, we support
the amendment. i hope that's what he will say. because the difficulty i have is i'd rather, mr. speaker, be doing medicare, tax breaks, jobs, urgent priorities that are needed. i just ask a bit of consideration on recognizing that the nation is better when we have provided a quality of life for all americans. who are we to speak of the needs of people who -- what we have asked is we put the four parameters of common sense and reasonableness, my amendment is that. it expands back to its regular order the existing comment period, mr. speaker, to 90 days. it strikes the provision in this bill that limits it to 30 days. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment that speaks to the health and good quality of life for all americans and america's children. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment because it strikes an important provision in the bill that streamlines the section 404 permit process, not just for coal operations but also for billions of dollars of economic activity in this nation. mr. gibbs: one of the loudest complaints we hear in congress is how long it takes the federal government to reach determination of some permanent requests. the army corps of engineers is the lead agency responsible for concluding the section 404 permits determinations, but the clean water act requires the corps to seek consultation with other agencies like the national marine fisheries service and fish and wildlife service. sadly, all too often this consultation is where the needless delays occur. not because of the course of action but because of the failure of the other agencies to provide timely information. this section, title 5, simply sets a more reasonable time frame for federal agencies to get information to the corps so a permit decision can be made in a timely manner. too many of us -- it is strange
to see this amendment from those who purport to extol the virtues of big government. sips this amendment makes it clear they don't believe big government is competent enough to reach a decision in a reasonable amount of time. the section of title 5, the language which has already passed in the house in resounding bipartisan majority, will streamline the permit application process and ensure that $220 billion of annual economic activity associated with section 404 activities does not grind to a halt. time is money and this is about jobs. and how long it takes to get permits done and holds up opportunity for jobs. i urge all members to oppose the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
ms. jackson lee: i ask -- mr. chairman, i call for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to considered amendment number 9. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, this amendment will prohibit the e.p.a. from retroactively invalidating permits after they have been issued. on january 13, 2011, the e.p.a. took an unprecedented action by
retroactively revoking a lawfully issued section 404 permit for the spruce number one surface mine in logan county, west virginia. this permit had been issued four years earlier after an extensive 10-year environmental review, including 1,600 page environmental impact statement which the e.p.a. fully participated and agreed to all the terms. and conditions included in the authorized permit. but this amendment is intended to address far more than coal mines. . if they can revoke a water permit for this industry they can do the same for any other manufacturer, refinery, municipality, farm our other government agency. imagining an entrepreneur stopping once they learned that they could -- the e.p.a. could
first grant the program, allow the business to proceed and then invalidating the permit, crushing the investment. or imagine a lending institution contemplating whether or not to loan money to someone subject to an e.p.a. regulation. should any of us be critical of them being reluctant once they, too, become aware that their loan could go into default once the e.p.a. retroactively revokes the permit on which the loan was granted? all of us in congress should be concerned about the chilling effect these actions by the e.p.a. have had and will have if they continue this threat to the creation of jobs by exceeding their statutory authority. at a time when our country is facing economic uncertainty and our families are struggling to make ends meet, i'm appalled by this continued assault on
american businesses and families that the e.p.a. has taken. our job creators need a consistent and predictable regulatory program that will protect jobs we have, create new ones so that we need an environmentally responsible manner. remember, this amendment is not just for coal mining but rather it addresses virtually every business in america which requires certainty in the regulatory environment. i urge your support and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i ask time in opposition to mr. mckinley's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, this amendment would take away the e.p.a.'s authority under the clean water act to
retroactively deny permits to fill streams and wetlands in order to protect drinking water, supplies, recreational waters and fish and wildlife habitat. now, the e.p.a. has used this authority to veto permits after they were issued responsibly only three times in 10 years. i should say three times in 40 years. all of these extremely rare cases and these voteos were necessary to protect critical water resources. in 1981 e.p.a. revoked a permit for a solid waste landfill because it was leaking toxics into biscayne bay. in 1989, after objecting to parliament before it was issued, it overturned a permit to destroy 1,200 acres of flood flain wetlands in georgia. and in 2010, which mr. mckinley mentioned, e.p.a. denied a permit for one of the largest mountain top removal mines in appalachia that would have burned more than four miles of streams and polluting them with mining waste, causing permanent damage to ecosystems and
streams. the veto was not a surprise and i stress that. e.p.a. consistently expressed its concerns about water quality, impacts of this mine beginning from 2002 through 2006 when the corps issued the permit. now, let me stress this was an extremely rare action taken by e.p.a., and the first time it was used it used the clean air act to overturn the approved mining permit. this has disrupted the biological integrity of an area about the size of delaware, buried approximately 2,000 miles of streams of mining waste, of contaminated downstream areas of toxic elements and people have been drinking the byproducts of coal waste for more than two decades. rather than clean and clear running out of their faucets, the people of appalachia are left with orange or blacklick wind instead. and this is not just about the environment, mr. speaker. it's about public health. the health problems caused by exposure of these chemicals include cancer, organ failure
and learning disabilities. not only that, there are children suffering from asthma, hey,, nausea and other symptoms likely due to contamination from coal dust. this is an environmental justice issue. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that e.p.a. is killing jobs and i disagree with mr. mckinley. what e.p.a. is doing is protecting the people of appalachia were exposure to toxic chemicals that are harming them. now to put this in perspective, each year the army corps of engineer processes about 60,000 permits to fill waters and grants 97% of them. over 40 years, the e.p.a. has vetoed only three of these permits retroactively. on the very rare occasion one of these permit threatens to permanently threaten our critical water resources, the e.p.a. should have the authority to stop it. this is authority that the e.p.a. has used very rarely, and there is no evidence that the e.p.a. has abused this authority. this amendment is completely unnecessary. i urge members to oppose it and
to protect e.p.a.'s authority to safeguard our waters and our drinking water sources and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mckinley: i ask how much time remains. the chair: both gentlemen have two minutes remaining. mr. mckinley: two minutes remaining. mr. chairman, i'd like to give the congressman from ohio one minute, please. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. gibbs i rise in strong suppt of the amendment. i chair the committee we had the hearings on this issue. let's get straight with this issue is. his amendment stops a revocation of a permit that after it's been issued and what the gentleman just referred to is a permit during the application process, the law allows the e.p.a. to veto a permit during the process. but after it's been approved this amendment takes care of not being able to revoke it years later. and keep in mind the revoked revocation that occurred was not because they were in violation of the permit.
it was nothing but political theater. there was no violation of the permit. the state of west virginia and the e.p.a. stated that and the army corps of engineers stated there was no violation of the permit. this sets a bad dangerous precedent. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, you know, i want to point out that in addition to this being a terrible amendment, it's also an amendment that's going nowhere and it really frustrates me that on the last day of the session before the election this do-nothing congress continues to bring up bills that are going nowhere and know are going nowhere. for two years they picked millionaires over those in the middle class. now they plan to leave today without entering into law without any responsible deficit reduction, any middle class tax cuts, the american jobs act. the farm bill they have neglected. the violence against women act. these are all urgent priorities that we should be working on
rather than pass amendments or bills that are going nowhere. the american people can't afford a do-nothing republican congress that refuses to act on issues critical to middle class families, to small businesses, to farmers and to women. and i urge the republican leadership to just stay in town and commote our work. don't waste our time on bills like this that aren't going nowhere. the senate is never going to take this up. now this is something the do-nothing republican congress has found time to do, increase cost on seniors by $6,400. republicans chose millionaires over the middle class giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest. republicans voted for corporations that ship jobs overseas over passing the american jobs act. and republicans voted to restrict women's access to health services. it is amazing to me that we sit here hour after hour on the last day because they refuse to work to talk about bills that aren't going nowhere when these issues need to be addressed.
i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mckinley: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from west virginia has the right to close. mr. mckinley: i reserve the right to close. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 30 second remaining. the gentleman from west virginia has 1 1/4. the gentleman from new jersey has the right to close. mr. mckinley: you're not going to use your 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has the right to close. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, briefly. let me just underscore here how people try to distract attention away from the argument. we heard all these other arguments. we talk about -- we heard the opponents. this is the first time, third time or whatever that is.
let's go back to what the courts have said. perhaps we need to have on the other side a little bit more education because the federal courts have already struck down that initial reading. they said, shame on you for not having read all of this. it's the federal courts said the e.p.a.'s interpretation of the act is not reasonable. neither the statute nor the memorandum of agreement between the e.p.a. and the corps makes any provision for a postpermit veto and this agency was completely unable to articulate what the practical consequences ofth actions would be. in addition, the court went on to say that the clean air act does not give the e.p.a. the power to render a permit invalid once it has been issued by the court. we ought to put this to rest. codify it and move on it. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask for a recorded vote. thank you.
the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i'm very much aware that the e.p.a.'s challenge was vetoed by the mining company and i'm hoping that the court of appeals will see the light and understand that the e.p.a. should be able to protect the health of the people of appalachia. again, this amendment is completely unnecessary and it's part of a process where this republican house does absolutely nothing but waste our time. we shouldn't be leaving today. we should be staying and doing our work. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. all time having yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from virginia seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider
amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-680. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-680 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, my amendment is going to call for 25% of the electricity in the united states being generated by renewables by the year 2035. the united states, excluding
hydro, is already up to 7% to 8% of all of our electricity generated by renewables here in 2012. so 23 years from now, the goal will be to reach 25%. now, why do i feel compelled to bring this amendment out here? well, the republicans say there is a war on coal. so far in this first year and nine months that they have controlled the united states congress, they have declared war on solar. they have declared war on wind. they have declared war on all renewables. that's why i bring this amendment down here to the house floor. they are going to kill the production tax credit for wind energy that is going to send the wind industry off a cliff next year. already 2,367 jobs have been
lost in the wind industry because of republican action. 40,000 jobs will be lost next year because of republican action. they are out to deliberately kill these jobs. how many will be lost? 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in pennsylvania will be lost. 4,000 jobs in colorado will be lost. 5,000 to 6,000 wind jobs will be lost in ohio. 6,000 to 7,000 wind jobs will be lost in iowa. if the republican policy is allowed to be put on the books. they have declared war on wind. they declared war on solar, on geothermal, on biomass. declared war. and so, ladies and gentlemen, what my amendment does is say, let's have a plan for everything else because it's not part of the republican
plan. and so by the year 2035, 25% of all electricity in our country must come from renewables. now, how do we know this is possible? there were 12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the united states this year. 3,200 new megawatts of solar installed in the united states this year. so geothermal, biomass, it's all growing. what's their goal? kill it. kill it. . that's their problem. natural gas is rising. it hurts the coal industry. it's the marketplace. wind and solar are growing, geothermal and biomass are growing. they don't want a level playing field. they want to pick winners and losers, they want to pick favorites. that's what it's all about. so far in their control of the congress in just a year and nine months, they have voted to slash
research and development for wind and solar. they have voted to end loan guarantees for wind and solar. they have voted to kill the transmission wires to carry wind and solar to our homes and our offices. the republicans are so opposed to americans having access to clean energy that even when it is built they don't even want to have the transmission lines to get it to american homes. it's a war on solar and wind. my amendment ensures that there's a pathway to the future for the most abundant american energy source, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. it's all here in america. at this point i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? million whitfield: i rise to claim time in opposition and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. million markey: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 1 1/4 remaining.
mr. whitfield: do i have the right to close? i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has the right to close. mr. markey: if i may inquire from the chairman, is the majority saying that there's only one speaker remaining on their side? then i will yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 1 1/4 minutes. mr. markey: and not only is it the most abundant source of energy in the united states, wind and solar, when we capture it, einstein won his nobel prize in 1921, that's the only one, and that's how to capture the power of the sun. and now on the cusp of doing this, especially as the price per kilowatt hour drops and drops, then it's all american. who is now leaning over our
shoulder? even though we invented these technologies? even though we are producing these technologies? are the chinese. the indians and others who will pounce on this global opportunity to create the jobs here in the united states. to export this technology around the world even as we deploy the technology here in our country that backs out the energy sources from around the rest of the world. this is what they fear. they fear the innovation. they fear the change. they fear our ability to capture wind and solar. the be able to send up a cleaner source of energy up into the sky that does not pollute. that's what this battle is all about. we do not want special advantage, all we want is a level playing field. the republicans continue this war against wind and solar. both aye for the markey amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: we don't -- we haven't declared war on wind or solar or anything else. we simply don't believe that when you have a $16 trillion federal debt that the federal government should use taxpayers' money to serve as venture capital for risky ventures like solyndra. that receive $538 million and now is bankrupt. if this technology is so good, let the premarket develop it. it does not read taxpayer support. yet on the other hand this administration has adopted policy that you can't even build a coal-fired plant in america because there is no technology available to meet the new emission standards of the obama e.p.a. and on this particular amendment, on page 7 of the amendment, it says that by the year 2035 that 50% of the
electricity would have to produced from renewables. the gentleman in his comments said 25%. this amendment says 50. i'm just reading from page 7. anyway, this amendment simply creates a national renewable electricity standard. we have seen it before. it was in the waxman-markey cap and trade bill in the last congress which was rejected by the congress. and this amendment does nothing more than mandate, determines for the american people where their electricity will come from and that they are going to be paying more for it. i urge people to vote against the markey amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report number 112-680. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. well, today the do-nothing wrong will slink out of town.
it's going to be the earliest adjournment in an election year since 1960, but i guess the nation has no problems and there's no work undone so it's time to go home and campaign. that's pretty extraordinary. we have enacted one quarter, one quarter the number of bills into law of harry truman's do-nothing congress, 1947-1948. so i guess this is the do-nothinger congress. so here we are again today. we are going to consider today the only work today will be four bills that have previously passed the house. someone hasn't read their kisks textbooks. if you pass the bill to the house and send it to the senate, it's there. they'll consider it. they won't consider it. if you pass it again and send it again, doesn't make any difference. in fact it's somewhat repepive and wasteful of everybody's time when we could be doing postal reform to assure the future of
the post office. we could be doing the farm bill. there are a lot of people suffering horrible drought. we could be dealing with the sequestration which there is concern on both sides of the aisle on that. but we are not. we are considering four bills previously passed. and one new one. i have a reasonable amendmentle to an unreasonable bill which is -- amendment to an unreasonable bill which is the bill before us, and my amendment would ask within six months, that's not very long, the department of transportation and the e.p.a. submit a report to congress on fugitive coal dust. now, i have seen some extraordinary letters been sent out saying this will stop projects and exports going forward. undo delay. i am not aware of anything that will be delayed by this. it says the study will be done. it doesn't delay any ongoing applications or projects at all. but what it would do is
potentially avert a tremendous amount of litigation down the road if we find the fugitive coal dust is not a problem, which the coal industry says, then that would renege a lot of people and gateway ports in large cities and the west where coal dust is being proposed to transit through those cities, including cities in my district. people are very concerned about this. they want to know is it it a problem? how far from the loading point does fugitive coal dust get, emitted from the car? are there ways to deal with the fugitive coal dust? should the cars be covered? is that a solution? what are the problems? what are the problems at its destination in terms of whether or not there would be coal dust at the port destination? if the coal is stored outside, how is it transported on to the ship, etc., etc. so if we have these answers, we could talk about the safe and
clean transport and allay a lot of concerns that are ultimately going to lead to a lot of litigation unless we know. now, the industry says, it's been studied. no, it hasn't. and in fact one railroad has pursued action against the coal industry because fugitive coal dust has caused safety problems on the railroad. it gets into the balance last, it blocks it from training. the ballast destabilizes, and trains can derail. that seems to me like a problem that should be dealt with. and there may be some very, very simple ways to deal with it. some say covered cars. there are other potential solutions out there. wouldn't it be good to know? wouldn't it be good to know? that's all i'm saying. a six-month study and report to congress. doesn't delay anything at all. it just would give us some knowledge and i would hope that we legislate around here with a
little bit of knowledge and not just off the cuff. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i rise to claim time in opposition. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from contract contract is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: does that mean there is only one speaker on their side? ok. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has one minute remaining. mr. defazio: again we'll hear apock craffle denational endowment for the humanities from the other side of the aisle this. will cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars. no, it's a study. it's a study that would take civics months. it's a study that if it agrees with the industry's conclusions would assure the american public that there won't be problems with these trains transitting through their hometown. it's something we should know. it's something the government
should look at. apparently there are proprietary studies we aren't allowed to see that there is no problem. if that's true thes are railroads and the industry should let the american public see those propry tear -- proprietary studies. so it's very simple amendment. it won't delay anything. it will take six months. it will cost very little. and it will give us the information and knowledge we need to figure out how to safely transport coal. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: we have a great respect for our friends on the other side of the aisle. i think we all recognize that we do have basic differences in our philosophy about the way energy is produced in america. it's quite clear that many people on the other side of the
aisle are very much opposed to coal. not only do they not want us to burn coal in america, they don't want us to export coal out of the country. even though it would help our trade deficit and would preserve jobs in the coal industry. this particular amendment on fugitive dust is really unnecessary because fugitive dust from the transport of coal is already regulated at the federal and state level under the clean air act. as well as state fugitive dust laws and regulations. e.p.a. already is required to study the environmental and health impacts of particulate matter from all sources, including fugitive sources, and of all compositions including coal dust. and the most recent summary of that science was published by
e.p.a. in 2009 and supplemented in 2010. in fact, this week the army corps of engineers also announced that it will conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed coal terminal in the sponsor's district. so i would say that we already have adequate protection. there's no need for this amendment, although i'm sure it's offered with the very best of intentions. so i would urge our members to oppose this amendment and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: gentleman from oregon seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in
house report 112-680. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition mr. flake: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from north dakota to offered amendment number 12. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 112-680, offered by million flake of arizona. . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i will immediately yield one minute to the gentleman from north dakota. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. berg: i thank the gentleman from for yielding and joining me in this amendment. i rise to support our amendment to ensure states continue to have control over regional haze regulations. when congress first established e.p.a.'s regional haze program, it acknowledged that regional haze and visibility regulation has to do purely with us theyic
value and not -- asthetic value and e.p.a. should not be decisionmakers when it comes to regional haze. instead of empowering states to do what's best for their citizens, the obama administration has again imposed another costly one-size-fits-all regulation for the producers of energy who are the most critical job creators in my state and across the country. our amendment will limit e.p.a.'s availability toover ride states' management of region -- to override states' management to regional haze. and they get to implement their own plans, the plans that fit their most individual needs. i urge our colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognize snigs mr. waxman: i seek to chrome the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman and my colleagues, i oppose this amendment. it would make a terrible bill even worse. our nation's environmental laws are founded on cooperative federalism. this is how it works. the federal government sets minimum standards to ensure every american has a basic level of protection so no one is forced to breathe dirty air or to drink dirty water. then the states decide how to meet those standards or set strocker standards if they choose. the states also implement the programs they adopt. finally, if a state fails to act, e.p.a. can step in and do the job itself. this approach has worked well for over 40 years.
it means that there is a healthy give-and-take between the states and the environmental protection agency. the states receive federal funds, and they run their own programs, but e.p.a. has the tools to encourage the states to do more when necessary. before congress adopted the clean air act in 1970 and the clean water act in 1972, both signed by president nixon, it was up to the states to control pollution. the problem was that many of em didn't do it. we had rivers catch on fire, smog so thick you couldn't see nearby mountains, and a tremendous toll on public health and lives. it wasn't that states didn't want to clean up pollution, but if there are no minimum standards, states are forced into a race to the bottom. if a state wants to reduce pollution from oil refineries, the oil industry could threaten to build its new refineries in
another state with looser requirements. the result is that states were afraid to require industry to clean up to the levels needed to protect the public. this amendment, like other provisions already in the bill, overthrows the principles of cooperative federalism that have guided us for 40 years. instead leaving pollution controls entirely up to the state. proponents of this amendment says that it's about e.p.a.'s regional haze program. every member should understand this is not limited to regional haze. the first part of the amendment is remarkably broad. it applies to all of the criteria air pollutants regulated by the states -- smog, nox, fine particulates and it applies to every area that is not meeting the health-based air quality standards. this amendment says that even
when a state fails to act, fails to control air pollution, e.p.a. can no longer provide a backstop. e.p.a. must wait at least two years before they could fill in for the states' failures, and there's no deadline for e.p.a. ever to act, allowing unhealthy air quality to persist indefinitely. citizens of that state will no longer have any recourse. the second part of this amendment effectively eliminates minimum national criteria to protect air quality on national parks. the clean air act has special provisions to protect air quality in the pristine lands that the nation has set aside for all americans to enjoy, our national parks, national monuments and wilderness areas. after all, we go to the grand canyon to see the view. there's a little -- there's little point of protecting these lands if we allow the air
and water to be polluted. this amendment targets those clean air act provisions. it says that when it comes to protecting the air quality of the national parks that belong to all americans, the state where the park is located has sole discretion to decide how much, if any, pollution control will be required. e.p.a. will no longer be able to require a minimum level of pollution reductions. and if the state failed to act entirely, as some have done, e.p.a. will no longer be able to step in and set pollution controls. the practical effect of this amendment will be to allow some of the oldest and dirtiest power plants in the country to continue polluting without standard pollution controls. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the
gentleman, and i yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, thank you. i'd like to support and thank my colleagues, congressman jeff flake and rick berg and support this amendment. i represent the areas where two of the arizona plants threatened by the e.p.a.'s heavy-handed regulations are located, the coronado generating system in st. john's and the trulia plant near joseph city. the third plant, apache center, is just 100 miles away and serves a good portion of my constituents in the southern part of my district. these are bedrock to our local communities. they provide high-paying jobs where unemployment is already over 10%. over the august recess, the environmental protection agency held public hearings in phoenix, holbrooke and benson on their federal plans. each of their plans in rural arizona had over 300 people present. that is an incredible turnout in these relatively small towns.
that is how important this issue is to my constituents. the e.p.a. refused to hold a hearing in st. johns despite being a community directly impacted by the regulations. so i hosted a meeting to facilitate this public comment. on a night where the local high school had their first football game, we still had over 100 people show up. listen, everybody wants clean air and good-paying jobs. the fact of the matter is the e.p.a. is acting well beyond its authority and under my state and others across the country. say yes to our amendment. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california has 15 second remaining. mr. waxman: i urge members to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentleman from arizona has three minutes remaining. mr. flake: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford.
the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: well, this is an interesting conversation. in january of 2009, the sierra club and several other organizations sued the e.p.a. to expand their authority, to expand what was the law. the e.p.a. ruled out of court in a settlement with them in a dissent decree to expand what was the policy, what was the law. several questions has to be answered here. one is does the executive branch have the authority to change the law through an agreement with the sierra club or any other organization? number two is, what is this all about? if you're dealing with visibility issues, you're not dealing with health issues specifically -- all what happened with regional haze. this is not about health. this is about visibility if my state there's one of the national parks that will change two views with the federal implementation plan rather than the state implementation plan that will cost racepayers in oklahoma millions and millions of dollars for someone that
cannot be seen by the human eye. this is about jobs. this is about who makes the decision and i do not like the assumption that only people in washington, d.c. care about the people of oklahoma. the people of oklahoma care about the health and safety of the people of oklahoma. i would vote yes for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman from oklahoma, the gentleman from arizona and the gentleman from north dakota for co-sponsoring this amendment. what we're talking about here is regional haze, as mentioned. this is not a health issue. it's a visibility issue. under the implementation plans being considered by the federal government -- let me just take the navajo generating station in northern arizona. what is being considered is likely an s.c.r. fix which would cost $1.1 million. that would cause the owners of the navajo generating system to simply shut it down. they can't produce economically with these kind of burdens.
the benefits of that, the benefits of that, we're told by the e.p.a., is there would be no perceptible improvement in visibility. none. man-made sources make up at best 5% of all regional haze in arizona. 5% at best. so you require $1.1 billion for what? no perceptible improvement in visibility of the grand canyon. why are we doing this? and the cost to arizona are immense. 85% of the power generated or used by the central arizona project to pump water for farmland and whatever else comes from the navajo generating station. if you shut down that station, farmers will have to go back to groundwater. well, they can. what does that do? that depleats our underground
resources causing environmental havoc. this is madness what is going on. and what this amendment seeks to do is to force the e.p.a. to actually follow the law. the law requires that the e.p.a. sets the standard and then the state offers state implementation plan or s.i.p. the problem is the e.p.a. is ignoring what the states smits. just ignoring it and then -- submits. just ignoring it and then going into third-party agreements. this is why this is a good amendment. i urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. mr. waxman: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-680. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-680 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. comboast ghost mr. chairman, i reserve -- mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i reserve -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: i'm pleased to put forth an amendment to protect the residents of arizona from the attacks on the navajo generating station. there are certainties
surrounding proposed e.p.a. regulations and their affects on the navajo generating station was one of the first things brought to my attention when i was sworn into congress. it would effectively shut down this critical and unique plant. a closure would dramatically increase the amount of water and power for my constituents and eliminate thousands of tribal and nontribal jobs all for no discernable improvement in visibility. again, according to the federal government itself, no discernible improvement in visibility. you see, this plant is unique because it is owned by six entities, chug includes the federal government. it was part of a plan created by visionaries so they could provide water to move water from the colorado water to the ack we duct system to the people of arizona -- aquaduct system to the people of arizona. the c.p.a. water delivers up to 80% of my state -- to 80% of my state's population. this includes 45% of phoenix's
water, the fifth largest city in the united states, and 80% of the water to the 32nd largest city in the united states, tucson. arizona we know today would not exist if this were not for this plant. the navajo generating station and associated coal mines directly employs over 1,000 arizonans, mostly native americans. additionally, according to the arizona state university study, the plant will indirectly account for more than $20 billion in impose state product and will indirectly provide for 3,000 jobs annually over the next 40 years. . i also want to point out a important part of this issue. the federal government is actually working against itself with these regulations. revenue from the sales of excess power are used to repay the federal government's debt for construction of the project. they are also used to help pay for the cost of congressionally authorized indian water rights settlements between the federal
government, tribes, and entities within arizona. without these revenues the federal government will be undermining its own legal agreements with native americans and people of arizona. let's put an end to this insanity. vote for my amendment and stop the e.p.a. from issuing far-reaching regulations and threatening jobs, arizona's water supply, affordable electricity, tribal rights established with congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: this amendment is narrower than many of the provisions in this bill. instead of providing a blanket get out of jail free card for many polluters, like most of the provisions in this bill, this amendment provides a blanket get out of jail free card for one polluter, the navajo generating station in arizona. the amendment prohibits e.p.a. from requiring pollution
controls if that would adversely impact employment at the navajo generating station or coal plants or coal mines on tribal lands in northern arizona. now, if you listen to the debate on the last amendment, you might think this is another dispute about whether e.p.a. or the states set the standards, but arizona has no authority to control air pollution on tribal lands and the tribe has not established its own program at that establish the standards. that means by barring e.p.a. from requiring pollution controls, this amendment would have the effect of ensuring modern pollution controls are not installed on this plant. that's a problem. the navajo generating station is a huge power plant, over 2,000 megawatts. it's also old, the navajo generating station began operating almost 40 years ago. and it was built without
standard pollution controls and it's dirty. this plant spews almost 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxide each year. this is a dangerous air pollutant. n.o.x. forms small particles that penetrate deep into the lungs causing emphysema, bronchitis, and other respiratory deezes -- diseases, heart attacks, and death. this plant harms air quality at 11 national parks and wilderness areas. these are some our nation's most treasured and popular national parks. almost 12 million americans visit these parks each year. they travel there because it's part of our natural heritage of the nation, and it belongs to all of us. but not if this amendment passes. this amendment says that
polluters' interest in continuing to pollute trumps america's interest in having clean air in their national parks. this amendment would remove e.p.a.'s authority to protect clean air in the national parks. i urge my colleagues to stand up to clean air and oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, is recognized. mr. gosar: i yield 90 seconds to my friend from arizona, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is offered by mr. gosar of arizona and it confronts a stunning example of environmentalism run amuck. if the generating station is forced to close due to e.p.a.'s nonsensical action it is would be devastating to the economies of the surrounding region, including those of the hopi and navajo tribes. shutting down the navajo
generating station would cut nearly 90% of the tribe's income and would effectively shut down the hopi as a functioning government. in addition to putting hundreds of arizonaians, including hundreds ever members of the navajo tribe out of work and affecting hundreds of thousands a arizonan's currently ability to receive water and electricity. in exchange for the difficulties created, the only, quote benefit yielding, would be a slight change in visibility, so slight as to not even be detectable without specialized equipment that is significantly more sensitive than the human eye. in other words, mr. chairman, the supposed environmental benefit is functionally nonexistent. this is far beyond the pail of environmental stewardship. mr. chairman, i commend mr. gosar for offering this amendment and i sincerely encourage my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the e.p.a. is not going to shut down
the power plant, but if this amendment passes they can do nothing to get some reductions in pollution and work with the power plant to accomplish that goal. i'd like to now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is being offered under the guise of protecting tribal sovereignty when we have seen the complete opposite from the majority during this congress. we have seen time and time again the majority's unwillingness to ignore tribal issues that are important to indian country, case in point is a bill the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, sponsored, h.r. 1904, entitled the southeast arizona land exchange. this was a give away of a sacred site of the apache tribe in arizona to a copper mining company. when the bill was considered, we heard desperate pleas from tribes across the country asking us to stop a foreign-owned mining company from bulldozing their sacred site in the name of
profit. i offered an amendment to protect the sites, it was straightforward and still allow the mining to take place, but it would have protected those sacred sites. the republican majority defeated the amendment. another example is a refusal by some members who are on the floor today to co-sponsor the radiation exposure compensation act. my bill would address years of suffering by those negatively impacted by uranium mining on the navajo nation. to this nay members of the navajo nation are sick and suffering from the legacy of uranium mining. cancer, kidney disease, and severe cases even death. when i visited with navajo elders and talking to the people impacted by exposure, they ask me, are people in congress waiting for us to die for the problem to go away? maybe someone should answer that question. so, mr. chairman, my republican colleagues come down here to say they are supporting and protecting tribal sovereignty. mr. waxman: i yield another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, my
republican colleagues come down here an say they are supporting and protecting tribal sovereignty with this amendment. let's take a hard look at their track record on these issues. they seem to only want to support tribal sovereignty when it's convenient as mr. gosar's amendment clearly demonstrates. before offering this amendment did the gentleman from arizona even consult with the navajo nation on this amendment? what we should be doing is encouraging government to government consultation between the tribe and e.p.a. to solve this issue not by forcing an amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, is recognized. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute to my good friend, mr. swikert from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. swikert: thank you, mr. chairman. this is one of those moments welfare reform do you beginning with some of the absurdity that we hear? i think this might be one i skipped the last set of comments because they had nothing to do with this amendment. look, the agreement's already there to spend the $45 million
to do the high temperature n.o.x. incineration. this is way outside my expertise but that's my understanding. and the ep except coming back and pushing and pushing to spend $1.1 billion for almost a statistically insignificant improvement. million swikert: -- mr. schweikert: ok, what we see is this environmental political theater up against reality. the map isn't reality -- math isn't reality. i used to chair the committee in my state legislature. i spent more time on native american lands in arizona than i bet you anyone in this body. the fact of the matter is if the e.p.a. gets their way here it's going to bust a number of the water compacts and a bunch of our agreements with those indian communities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. time has expired for all.
the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, my colleagues, this is an amendment that would do more harm than good i urge my colleagues to oppose it. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i request a roll call vote. the chair: a roll call vote is requested, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in
house report 112-788 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 3 by mr. waxman of california. amendment number 4 by million kelly of pennsylvania. amendment number 5 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 8 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 9 by mr. mckinley of west virginia. amendment number 108 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 11 by mr. defazio of oregon. amendment number 12 by million flake of arizona. amendment number 13 by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-680, by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1,
printsed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-680, by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 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 178. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4, printed in house report number 112- 85, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, by the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report number 112-680, offered by million kelly of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and being 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 242 the nays are 168, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-680, by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number 5, printed in house report 112-680, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which the noes ve pre-vailed by voice volt. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-680, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-680, by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-680, offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
house report 112-680, by gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, which the noes prevailed by voice croat. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 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 160. the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 12 plinted -- printed in house report 112-680 by gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vode 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.
the chair: the yeas are 168. the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-680 by gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, 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 12, printed in house report number 112-680, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays are 183, the amendment is adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-680 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. go saturday, on which -- mr. gosar, on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim -- the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in russ oh report 112-680, offered by mr. gosar of queas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 5 sufficient number having risen, 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.]
accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3409 and pursuant to house resolution 788 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is now ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to limit the authority of the secretary of the interior to issue regulations before december 31, 2013, under the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977. the speaker pro tempore: members will please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill. mrs. capps: yes, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualify the clerk will report the motion.
the clerk: mrs. capps moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of title 2 of the bill, insert the following new section, section 203, ensuring consumers pay less for gas and that fuel efficient automobiles continue to be made in america. a, finding, congress minds as follows. one, the standards of a national program to improve fuel efficiency and reduce pollution for light duty cars and trucks will provide major economic and consumer benefits to the united states. two, the standards will save families more than $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and reduce america's dependence on oil by more than two million barrels per day in 2025, which is equivalent to one-half of the oil which our nation currently imports from opec countries each day. three, as a result of the
standards a family with a model year 2025 vehicle will save more than $8,000 in fuel cost over the life of the vehicle compared to a 2011-year vehicle. four, as a result of the standards, average net savings for the own eefer 2025 vehicle will be e-- equivalent to a drop in fuel prices of $1 per gallon. b, preservation of rules. section 330 of the clean air act shall not apply with respect to the time rule issued by the environmental protection agency and the department of transportation on august 28, 2012, relating to standards for pollution control and fuel efficiency for model year 2017 and later light duty vehicles. and such rules shall take effect on the effective date specified in the rule if notification of such rule would result in, one, consumers on
average paying more for gasoline over the life of their motor vehicles, or, two, the loss of jobs in the united states automobile manufacturing industrial sector or a negative impact on the overall united states economy. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, there are many times then we -- when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate and we've heard some heated debate on this bill but my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together to do something ex-troird -- extraordinarily important, and that is to ensure our constituents' hard-earned cash is redirected away if the gas pump and back into their wallets. i want to be clear, the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. if it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill would be immediately voted upon. now i make no apologies for
opposing this bill, but regardless of how you feel about it, the bill -- about the bill, my amendment should be something we can all agree on. my amendment preserves -- the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will please be in order. mrs. capps: my amendment preserves fuel efficiency standards issued last month. if they're repealed it will mean higher prices at the pump for constituents or lost jobs for workers. these new standards raise fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon, roughly twice what with our cars are getting today. by 2025, these standards will save consumers $1. trillion at the fwat pump and cut our oil imports by two million barrels per day. that's one-half our current imports from opec. they also represent a new chapter for american ingenuity. mr. speaker, if u.s. engineers
made it possible for every car to include a computer more powerful than the one that sent a man to the moon, then surely they can produce cars that go further on a gallon of gas. the good news is they can and they are. there are now 57 fuel efficient models available in showrooms today, up from 27 models in 2009. carmakers have retooled some of their most popular models to boost efficiency and the improvements keep coming. the first half of this year set the record for highest ever fuel efficiency for new vehicles. consumers are rewarding these breakthroughs. fuel efficiency is the top concern for car buyers, by far. this is according to "consumer reports." the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. mrs. capps: consumers support these new standards. families will save an estimated $8,000 in gas lease -- in
gasoline costs over the life of their car, that's equivalent to lowering the price of gasoline by $1 per gallon. these standards also provide long-term certainty, that's why three major automakers, including general motors, ford and chrysler all support them. strong standards tell carmakers exactly what goal they need to reach by when. so they can invest in innovation, deploy new technologies and build cars right here in america. and when they do that, they hire more workers. more than 150,000 americans have jobs making parts for an a-- for and assembling more efficient cars in america today. carmakers are moving production to our shores also. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. members will please take their conversations off the house floor. the gentlelady from california deserves to be heard. mrs. capps: one carmaker alone, honda, recently announced plans to move all global civic hybrid
manufacturing to indiana from japan, creating 300 jobs by the end of the year. this on shoring of jobs is because of our commitment to make manager efficient cars and components in america. that's why g.m.'s c.e.o. dan ackerson called these standards, and i quote, a win for american manufacturing for the very first time. mr. speaker, everybody wins when more efficient cars hit the roads. american workers win, drivers win, and automakers. these standards demonstrate the best of america. how creating jobs goes hand in hand with protecting the environment and health. how drivers can save billions in gasoline costs. how american auto industry can compete with any country in the world. that's why we must preserve these his -- historic standards and the enormous benefits that come with them by voting for my final amendment. i ask that all my colleagues weigh this simple proposition -- do you want your constituents to payless at the pump and drive more efficient cars made in america?
if your answer is yes, then vote for my amendment. it ensures that our constituents will save thousands of dollars every year at the gas bump -- gas pump and make shures that american workers will find jobs building the cars of the future right here in america. today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice, to save these landmark car efficiency standards. it's up to us. support this final amendment to the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . this motion is nothing more than a distraction from the underlying legislation that we are considering today. and the journey that we began in january of 2011 to cut government spending, to create jobs, and today to stop the administration's war on the coal
industry. mr. johnson: we, all of us in this chamber, sat here a little over a year ago and we heard an address by the prime minister of australia. she started her speech off by saying, you know, i remember being a young girl. sitting on the floor of my living room watching as neal armstrong and buzz aldrin landed on the moon. she wept on to talk about that era -- went on to talk about that era of innovation in america and what that meant and how that inspired the rest of the world. do we need to be reminded that it was the coal industry that fueled america's innovative engine and powered america's innovative wheels during that period of innovation? i don't think so. today's underlying legislation, it's about the thousands of jobs that have already been cut from the coal industry. the thousands more that are in jeopardy to be cut from the coal industry.
it's about the millions of americans and america's business that is are paying skyrocketing prices -- businesses that are paying skyrocketing prices. 23 million americans underemployed yet we got an administration that wants to attack the very reliable energy source that would fuel a resurgence in manufacturing and put america back to work. ladies and gentlemen, i implore to you, defeat this motion to recommit. vote on the final passage of this legislation today. let's get america back to work and stop the administration's war on coal. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mrs. capps: ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20,
the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. 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 question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the legislation passes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, on this i request a recorded 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. [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 233, the nays are 175. the bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ski unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, september 25, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i have heard from many texas business owners who built their own business without the government -- without government help. here's what pam from liberty, texas, has to say. we are college-educated, tax-pay -- taxpayers who have a lifetime of hard work on you are -- under our belts. we have stayed up at nights trying to figure out how to pay our taxes, insurance, employees and our bank notes. we started from scratch, owning convenience stores, car washes,
mini stores, clothing business and also operating two small-town movie theaters built by my husband's grandparents and parents. the late zest a a real estate business. there's not much anyone can tell us about the sacrifices that have to be made when you start up your own business. we have done it all, including working full-time jobs for someone else to make ends meet. no government agency has helped us with thun bing but -- thing but the government has made it harder and more expensive to run our businesses. people, not the government, make america's businesses successful. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one
minute. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. one of my constituents wrote very emphatically, how could congress possibly leave when they know that we, the people, face the deep, dark abyss of uncertainty. uncertainty about our unemployment, uncertainty about the jobs that we need, the uncertainty that comes when your mortgage is under water, the uncertainty that comes when you know you have to educate your children, and yet congress leaves without addressing the basic needs of the people that we're porn sworn to serve. for the last week, we've heard an awful lot about work requirements. the primary work requirement that should be asked is of this united states congress, for it to stay and do the work of the
people. there is a jobs bill that's out there. there is a tax cuts that -- that can be achieved. let's stay and do that work. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today on behalf of the men and women who worked tirelessly to make indiana the best place to do business in the midwest. coal produces the electricity that powers everything from manufacturing mainstays to small business startups. mr. speaker, coal-fired electric power plants provide 83% of indiana's net electricity generation in 2011. unfortunately, president obama's e.p.a. has waged a war on coal. unelected bureaucrats have proposed a series of sweeping regulations that would destroy jobs and decrease domestic
energy production. as a result of washington's overregulation, the energy information administration expects the pace of coal fired power plants shutdowns to increase four-fold in the next five years. today, we've had an opportunity to stand up for the american coal industry and the families and businesses that rely on the electricity they provide. we can ensure that regulations are sensible and not overbearing. we can make sure that coal keeps lighting home, stores, factories in indiana. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee -- from oregon seek recognition? ms. bona -- from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: i want to recognize
a school in my district for receiving the bronze recognition as one of 2012's best high schools in the country. u.s. news and world report ranked 22,000 public high schools across the country and i'm proud that one of the memphis schools was recognized. this was named after the fourth president. hollis price is a collaborative effort to improve graduation rates. i want to commend the principal, all the faculty and staff for all their hard work and dedication and the students, too, and their parents on this great achievement. i was proud to speak at their graduation with a few years ago. it's a great school. continue to make memphis proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from day one my focus in
congress has been on jobs and the economy. i believe that the best thing congress can do is to find common ground to move our country forward. mr. dold: this week i'm happy to say we did just that. on wednesday evening the house of representatives passed a bipartisan jobs bill which i am pleased to say i championed and which would encourage global investment here in our country. this means jobs in our local communities, companies in the 10th district like estellas and semens are able to invest -- seemen's are able to invest and put people back to work. i want to thank representatives roskam, peter and barrow for helping to pass a commonsense bill that encourages business to grow right here at home. i firmly believe, mr. speaker, that when we put people before politics and progress before partisanship we can get things done for the american people.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i took to this floor to discuss the brave dissidents inside cuba and went on a hunger strike to protest the jailing of one of their own. the end of that hunger strike when the castro dictatorship talked about the pending release of that dissident. this was a victory of the opposition movement inside cuba but there is still much to be done. mr. rivera: the international community must continue to denounce the human rights abuses occurring inside cuba, the lack of civil liberties and democratic rights and continue to support the heroic opposition struggling for a free and democratic cuba inside the island. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: you know, mr. speaker, recently we passed a continuing resolution to take care of funding of the government until next march. and one of the things that concerned a lot of us was, is any of that money in that continuing resolution going to go to help the government of egypt or libya or any of the other countries where we see all that civil unrest and all that horrible acts of murder taking place? and i never did get an answer, so i would just like to say to my colleagues who are going to be here -- i'm retiring at the end of this year -- we should not give one dime, not one penny to any country that tries to undermine the united states' interests around the world and we should not give one penny to anybody that constantly tries to spread radical fundamentalist muslim beliefs
in this world. shahrya law is something we can't live with and we need to let them know very clearly if they want to work with the united states, fine, but they're not getting any money from us if this continues. this world is in a terrible shape because of these radicals and we must not let them win this battle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members from refrain were trafficking in the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, americans don't want permanent wars to last three or four times longer than world war ii and they especially don't want to spend hundreds of billions on people who hate us or don't at least appreciate what we have done for them. probably half the spending we have done over the years in iraq and afghanistan has been pure foreign aid. and we have point of order
millions into pakistan and egypt throughout the middle east. our nation is $16 trillion in debt. we are borrowing this money to send the money that is exploding with anti-american rage. 17 americans have been killed by afghan police whom they were training. now we have our ambassador and three others killed in libya. we should have gotten out of afghanistan years ago. we need to get out now and not take too long to do it. we must not run the whole world and start putting our own country first once and for all. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one minutes? being none, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. berman of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will recognize
members without prejudice to the presumption of legislative business. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. and so this 112th congress convulses to an ugly end of its time before the national elections. all of us must be sad and the american people are angry and sad that this congress has been so inattentive to the needs of the american people. mr. speaker, today house
republicans are leaving town and will not return until after the november elections. two very respected political scientists, not democrats or republicans. one representative of a more conservative think tank and one a more liberal think tank have written a book about the dysfunction they have seen in this congress. mr. mann and mr. ornstein, quoted by many reporters from many journals from all different perspectives. they said this -- we have been studying washington politics and congress for more than 40 years and never, never have we seen them as dysfunctional. in our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. today, however, said these two respected political scientists and observers of washington,
today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the republican party. they went on to say that the g.o.p. has become an insurgent outliner in american politics. it is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science. and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. that is the nub of the problem. our republican colleagues are leaving without getting their work done. and i say their work done. without getting our work done. the work of the american people. comprehensive jobs bills, middle-class tax cuts have not been extended. farmers are left on their own
to face the worst drought in decades, the worst drought in decades and a farm bill reported out of the republican committee lays unconsidered by this floor. reported out of their committee from their majority and they haven't brought it to the floor while farmers remain in trouble. we've not re-authorized the violence against women act, and we have not passed a postal reform bill. i am glad to take this special order, mr. speaker, to say to the american people that we're prepared to stay. we're prepared to stay and work on these bills, and i'm going to talk about some of these bills but my colleagues are here as well. i first want to yield to the former president of the senate of vermont for his observations as we leave this town. my friend, mr. welch from vermont. mr. welch: i thank the
gentleman. you know, on the farm bill, we got the worst drought we've had in 50 years. we've got people who need nutrition programs. we've got farmers who need certainty about what the price of our programs are going to be, future is going to be. we have livestock farmers that are in desperate straits because of the drought, and we got a senate that's passed a farm bill. we got a house agriculture committee that's passed a farm bill on a bipartisan basis, democrats and republicans working together to pass that bill, and the house leadership, who has the authority to bring this bill to the floor, won't do it. that's the first time in the history of the house of representatives where a farm bill passed by the agriculture committee has not been brought to the floor for a vote. and mr. speaker, we could defend each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle a vote of conscience whether it
was yes or no on the farm bill. none of us can defend not even taking a vote on the farm bill. that decision is not within the authority of any individual member of congress. that is the decision that the majority leader and the speaker of the house have the authority to make. and the refusal to bring this bill to the floor will be absolutely an indictment of congress' inability to do its job. america needs a farm bill. this congress needs to do its job. we got the time to do it. we should act. that bill should be brought to us for a vote, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, that is an example of the dysfunction and inability and unwillingness to compromise of which mr. ornstein and mr. mann spoke. i now yield to my friend from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: i thank minority whip hoyer who has led us so
expertly well on this floor. you cite the many failings of this do-nothing republican congress. it is tragic that we will leave home -- for home now and not get the work of the people done and will not respond to the needs of america. that is such an unjust outcome. we know that a middle-class tax cut has been passed in the senate. the president said he would sign it. we need that measure. we need that measure done so as to provide for confidence in the american economy. what we need right now is that sort of boost, that booster shot can do a lot for growing sales for businesses out there. the aggregate demand for goods and services driven by relief for the middle class via a tax cut is important. the violence against women act that was re-authorized in the senate, failed to come to this floor. postal reform. overwhelmingly approved by the senate. fails to come to this floor. the farm bill, which is important to all of upstate new
york. i know our members from the upstate delegation, from the new york delegation are greatly disturbed by the do-nothing republican congress. minority whip hoyer, thank you for leading us in this congress. we have not earned a six-week recess until election day without having done the people's business. we need to stay here, get the people's work done, build america's economy, go forward with progress and provide for the results that america so desperately needs and it's a shame that this do-nothing republican congress has now called halt to all business on this floor for the next several weeks. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments, he's absolutely right. just for the knowledge of all our members, the senate did pass a middle class tax cut. making sure that 98% of our taxpayers would not get any increase in their taxes on the first of january. that bill is over here.
it has not been brought to the floor. yacht -- notwithstanding the fact that i believe every one of us believes that those taxpayers ought not to get an increase. there's broad bipartisan support but i won't be brought to the floor. in the violence against women act, to ensure that women and families are not summitted to violence, it passed 68-31 in the united states state. postal reform passed 62-37 in a bipartisan rote in the united states senate. not paying attention to here. but the farl bill, which passed which 64 votes, almost 2-1 in the united states senate on a bipartisan vote with 16 republican senators voting for it, has not been brought to this floor. and yet we walk away. we walk away from the american people. i now yield to my friend from illinois, the gentlelady from illinois, january schakowsky.
ms. shah cusky: i thank the gentleman so much for -- ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman so much for yielding and for pointing out how languishing in the house of representatives are many pieces of legislation that have passed the united states senate in a bipartisan way with a democratic majority but here in the house, where we have a republican majority, and as you pointed out, some of these bills have passed their own committees, led by republicans, are still not being considered on the floor today. so we're going to adjourn. and we will not meet again for almost two months. the earliest adjournment before an election in over 50 years. republicans are going to turn off the lights in this chamber, shutting down debate on matters of serious consequence to americans and the economy. shame on them. we should be staying and dealing with those bills. they have voted, for example, time after time, to repeal
obamacare and protect tax cuts for the wealthy and rich corporations that have taken no action on preserving tax cuts for the middle class. for 9 % of american taxpayers. -- 98% of american taxpayers. or taken any action on the violence against women act which passed the senate on a bipartisan vote of 68-31, always passing for the many years that the violence against women act has been enacted. it's always had bipartisan support. we haven't passed the wind production tax credit which again would mean jobs for americans in an industry that has just been developing right now, that's so important to our environment, and for people, for instance, in my state of illinois and in iowa and other mid western states, we haven't passed the doctor fix making
sure that medicare reimbursements to doctors don't drop by 27%. we haven't dealt with sequestration, which would have a devastating impact on investments that create jobs and protect low income people. there's been no action on the post office reform or the farm bill which has been mentioned but in illinois where we have a serious drought in southern illinois, our farmers are waiting for drought relief but they're not going to get it from this congress. and most importantly, while republicans have found the time to vote again and again to end the medicare guarantee, making it harder for seniors to choose their own doctors and raising the cost of health care for seniors by over $6,000 a year they haven't found the time to bring a comprehensive jobs bill to the floor.
one that deals with making it in america. an industrial policy that would actually put americans back to work right here at home. millions of hardworking american people are still looking for more than just talk about jobs. over a year ago, i introduced the emergency jobs to restore the american dream act to create more than two million jobs and put people back to work in the most straightforward of ways, by hiring them. my bill would put people to work in critical areas to our communities and or economies like teachers, cops, firefighters, health care workers, school construction and maintenance workers. and over a year ago, president obama sent to congress the american jobs act, which incorporated parts of my bill and also would provite tax credits to small businesses and yet another tax credit and assistance to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of critical workers.
independent experts estimate that president obama's american jobs act would create up to 2.6 million jobs. but the republican do-nothing congress brought neither of these jobs bills to the floor. no. they are every day sabotaging every effort to actually help create jobs and to make it in america. democrats truly do want to stay to fight for jobs, for the economy, for farmers, for taxpayers, for battered women and it's time for the republicans to join us. thank you, mr. minority leader, for leading us in this effort and i urge all of our republicans to join us in staying here. thank you. mr. hoyer: i thank the distinguished member from illinois, ms. schakowsky for her comments. nobody fights harder for working seniors in this
congress than january schakowsky and no one is sadder that we have been so lacking in attention to the issues of concern to those folks. i want to recognize allyson schwartz of the state of pennsylvania, a great leader, member of the ways and means committee, trying to work on behalf of jobs and growing our economy. i yield to my friend from pennsylvania. ms. schwartz: thank you, mr. hoyer. you've been speaking every week on the actions we ought to be taking to protect our seniors, deprow our economy and making sure our children have a great future. you speak eloquently about that every week. i'm pleased to be able to just join you in calling attention to the fact that we do have serious economic and fiscal challenges in this nation and instead of coming together, trying to find common ground, trying to find that agreement so we can solve these problems for the -- that the american people are asking us to do so solve the problems, the republicans have been doing nothing, trying to roll back,
move us backwards and in fact republicans as we know just decided to recess and head home. we know the republicans, yet again, have made their choices, their priorties, their values very clear, not only to us but our constituents, but really all americans are seeing more clearly what the republicans' choices have been. they are determined to dismantle the progress we have made and continuously try to roll back what accomplishments we have made and to take our country back to a failed economic ada that's hurt so many americans. their goals, the republican goals, are stunning and we have seen them every week on the floor of congress for the last year and a half, almost two years. repealing health care reform and eliminating the benefits for seniors and access to affordable coverage for millions of americans, repealing financial regulatory system, eliminating consumer protections on doing environmental regulations and
threatening clean water and clean air, ending medicare as we know it, reducing the federal government at any cost. that has been the goal. i want to mention quickly two things that you're going to talk some more about, on medicare i fought so hard on medicare, we all have. the republicans have been absolutely clear about this. their willingness to undo medicare for all seniors, i mean, i've said this before, but whether you're 65 and expecting medicare, living under medire right now, you will see a reduction in benefits. whether you're 55 or 45 or 35 and you're paying into medicare, want medicare to be there in the future, they are threatening that promise of medicare. they are deliberately working and have voted to end medicare as we know it. we've seen that time and again. the republican, not just leadership, not just mr. ryan, but most of the republicans, not all of them, have voted for this. rather than guarantee benefits under medicare, the republicans
will leave seniors on their own to buy benefits that they can afford or not. the voucher will be inadequate to buy medicare benefits as they exist now, costing seniors about $4,600 more per year. they threatened their fellow seniors as well in nursing homes by voting for a third of a cut in medicaid that affects really the costs our seniors in nursing home. any of us who have loved ones or visit nursing homes know that these are people who really require a great deal of care. this is the agenda of the republicans. and instead of tackling what we are willing to do together, middle class tax cuts, they're holding hostage to tax breakers in wealthiest 1% or 2%. won't move forward on that sort of certainty on many of the issues facing us, at the end of the year, that fiscal cliff many of us talk about, not doing the kind of work that these to be to the get done to create that certainty to
protect medicare, to fail to make strategic investments to make sure that the tax policy is fair and we do fiscal policy for our nation in the right way, the fair way, the responsible way, the achieveable way. i thank you for this special order and i am calling on republicans to meet these challenges for our nation and to do that together. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments, no one works harder on health care and delivery of health care to all our people but particularly concerned about health care for our seniors and how ironic it is that the pledge that the republicans made was to repeal and replace -- i'm going to talk a little bit about that. but there has been no replacement. on the one hand, they want to eliminate the guarantee that medicare gives to people to have the security that health care will be available to them, and on the other hand, offer nothing to replace it. no alternative. except to increase substantially the cost of those
seniors in the time of need of health care. so i thank the gentlelady for her work, i thank her for her leadership on this very, very critical issue. i now am pleased to yield to the distinguished minority leader, the former speaker of the house, who has been instrumental in ensuring affordable health care is available to all of our people, nancy pelosi of california. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. hoyer. i appreciate you yielding and your leadership in bringing us together on the floor of the house. we are in after hours, it is only 12:00:40, but it's after hours on a friday afternoon. that is in the context that we left here on august 3, we're not due back until november 14, and yet we have had only eight legislative days of work in that period of time. i thank u thank you for calling
that -- i thank you for calling that delinquency of duty, dereliction of duty, to the attention of the american people. we have work to do. it's not as if our work is finished. as you had indicated, there's critical expiring legislation that has passed even in the senate yet republicans have blocked the vote in the house, whether it's middle income tax relief, postal reform, violence against women, farm bill, and then of course initiatives proposed by president obama to create jobs and our economy. i wanted to -- i was so pleased to hear what you are you are -- our colleague congresswoman schwartz had to say about medicaid because really, our names are all on the ballot in this year's election but really what is at stake is medicare. medicare, medicare, medicare. as you said, distinguished whip hoyer, they offered nothing except to raise costs to seen quors for getting less as they
phase out medicare. i wanted to talk about another subject, though. it's a larger issue that i hear this question bandied about. you hear people say, are you better off now than you were four years ago. the republicans. -- the republicans have the nerve to pose that question when if you look back to four years ago, this very week, mr. speaker, you would know that we are indeed fundamentally and unquestionably better off as a country today. this fall, again, this week, four years ago, september 18, to be exact, but this week, there was a meeting in my office when i was speaker of the democratic and republican leadership of the house and of the senate. gathered together to hear a report from the administration that was very alarming.
mind you, september 18, 2008, the secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, described for us a financial system in imminent danger of total collapse. chairman bernanke at that same meeting, chairman of the fed, told us if we didn't act immediately we would not have an economy by monday. this is a thursday evening. you remember, mr. hoyer, you were there. if we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by monday. how on earth can people who perpetrated that situation on our country have the nerve to turn around and ask that question? at the end of the meeting, we all went out in a bipartisan way and spoke to the press, and i said at the time, time is of the essence and then congress
would act. trying to lift the confidence in our financial situation. despite a president's -- presidential election seven weeks away at that time, it was no time for partisanship. the crisis demanded that democrats and republicans work with president bush to rescue our economy from depression, or as chairman bernanke said, from not having an economy four days later. in the days ahead, our country confronted the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the cost was staggering more than $8 trillion lost in household wealth, and thousands losing their homes to foreclosure. nonetheless, the republicans voted with president bush to restore confidence in our markets and the -- the democrats voted with president bush to restore confidence in our markets and the republicans
walked away from their president. we continued to take actions to reduce spending, to address the -- what was inevitable from the policies of the eight years previous to the november, 2008, election. we continued -- when we took majority and president obama was in office, we took action to create jobs, put people in -- keep people in their homes and passed dodd-frank. the toughest piece of legislation. and with it the most historic for the first time, protections for american consumers. in that bill. all of it fought vigorously again by the republican. so now we have president obama and we have a republican congress. under president obama's leadership we have added private sector jobs for 30 straight months compared to losing 700,000 jobs when he entered office. the auto industry, which was facing extinction and the loss
of over one million jobs in that industry is again competitive and tiring and thriving. the dow jones average, which is one reflection of the security of tens of americans of the american -- millions of the american investors and pricing is doubling for housing. the dow jones has doubled. we still have work to do to continue the american recovery. if the republicans had cooperated at all with president obama in the last two years, we'd be much farther down the road to recovery. we cooperated with president bush, but they would mott offer an ounce of collaboration to president obama, and our economy has paid the price. we have reaped the benefits of some what happened during the two years when we were in majority and president obama
had -- in the first two years of his term, but so much more could have been with some cooperation from the republicans. so we get back to the question. are we better off this week in september than we were this week four years ago? well, you be the judge. i know america's families are hurting. we want to do more to create jobs, etc., and we have to have bipartisan cooperation to do that. the republicans have resisted that. from that standpoint, yeah, we can do better. but from the standpoint of this country being with a state where the financial -- there was a financial crisis, we are on the verge of a total collapse, where the chairman of the fed told us if we did not act immediately, we wouldn't have an economy by monday, yes, we are fundamentally as a country better off, and therefore the prospects for the future are better for all of america's families. and that's what we are here to work on, the future.
too bad our republican colleagues have cut and run from town, but we stand ready to welcome them back to work in a bipartisan way, to make concessions, to get the job done for the american people. and i thank you, mr. hoyer, for giving us all the opportunity to express that view on this subject today. mr. hoyer: madam leader, i thank you for your leadership. you are so correct in studying the statistic of the dow, having doubling. it's up about 105%, 110%. the standard & poor's is up more than double, and the nasdaq is up more than double over those years. in january of 2009, i'm sure most people tragically remember, we lost 818,000 private sector jobs that month. last month we gained 92,000 jobs. is there anybody that could say a loss of 818,000 jobs isn't a lot worse than the gain of
92,000 jobs? 92,000 jobs is not enough. we need to do more. the president offered a jobs bill. it has not been brought to this floor. notwithstanding the fact in the pledge to america we said this was going to be a transparent congress that would be allowed to work its will. that bill has not been brought to the floor. we have gained straight more jobs, 4.6 million jobs to be exactly correct over the last 30 months while 4.4 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone. are we better off gaining 4.6 million as opposed to losing 4.4 million jobs? and we've had 12 straight quarters of economic growth. the last four quarters of 2008, in the last administration, was a net 13% decrease in g.d.p. yes, mr. speaker, the leader is correct. we're better off today, but we could be much better off and we ought to be better off if we
hadn't walked away from a jobs bill. hadn't walked away from investing in an infrastructure bill that gave certainty. we didn't even bring that bill to the floor. walked away from making sure that the health care bill works properly. walked away -- and i am going to recognize mr. costa: walked away -- recognize mr. costa: walked away. i want to yield to my friend -- i know that ms. woolsey is next. mr. costa, could he go next on the farmers and then i'll recognize ms. woolsey? he knows the pain that is going on in farm country and he knows how terrible it is to walk out of the house-passed bill out of the committee and i yield to my friend who is such an active member of the agriculture committee and such a proponent
of farm country, not only in california, which he represents, but throughout this country. mr. costa. mr. costa: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding the time. we ought to be about doing the people's business and walking away today, as we are for the next 46 days to focus on elections when we ought to be focusing on the people's business, is a very sad commentary, a very sad commentary to the people of our land. i appreciate all the good work that congressman hoyer and my other colleagues do in trying to address the critical challenges that we face our nation today. our house republican colleagues have left town to focus on the election. but in the meantime we have unfinished business with unfinished business on comprehensive jobs, big and balance budget solutions to the deficit, tax cuts for middle class, the farm bill, which i want to speak to, and the violence against women's re-authorization act as a co-chair of the victims of
crime caucus especially disheartening. let me say folks in america who farm and put the food on america's dinner table are wondering just why, just why we can't get a farm bill. it is one of the most bipartisan things we ever do here in congress. 2008 we had a bipartisan farm bill when we had the majority. president bush vetoed it. we overrode his veto twice. today we have a farm bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate by a vote of 64-35. it made cuts because we have to make cuts and we have to be fiscally responsible. $23.5 billion less than the farm bill of 2008. in the house, as a member of the house ag committee, we voted a comprehensive bill out, 35-11. we made cuts because we have to make cuts. in a number of the areas we
made similar cuts as we did as the senate. $20 billion in farm programs. we made additional cuts in nutritional programs, which are part of what would normally be worked out if regular order was allowed to take place. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? and he may know this better than i because he works so closely with the ag community, but over 70 farm organizations and farmer focused organizations came to town just a week or two ago and all said, pass the senate bill. not because they believed it was perfect but it was a bipartisan bill that they believed would bring relief to farm country and give some certainty to the farming community. i think i'm correct on that and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. costa: the gentleman is correct. we had over 70 farm organizations from the american farm bureau, the national farmers union to the, as we say, the barnyard coalition that represents all of the
poultry and beef and cattle industries because they understand that a farm bill is a safety net. and without it we don't have a farm policy, we don't have a food policy for not just american farmers, ranchers and dairymen, but for the consumers who each night enjoy the highest quality produced with the safest quality than anywhere in the world. let me say two things. the dairy industry, we've had a drought in the mid west that has devastated a whole host of the farm community and what is one of the ways that the farmers, ranchers and dairymen are able to produce next year's crops? well, they get loans. they get loans from banks and from production credit associations. what are those loans made of? they're based upon the value of their farm and how they're lempled and based upon a farm bill, a farm bill that provides
the ability to ensure that there's a safety net and that there is crop insurance. and without a farm bill we don't have any crop insurance. without a farm bill we don't have that safety net. and so with the overwhelming bipartisan support we have in the senate, the bipartisan bill that voted out of the house ag committee, it seems to me we ought to let the process work. so i would urge my colleagues to come back, to come back and let's do the people's business on all of these issues. the violence against women's re-authorization act, the crime victims caucus every day is focusing on protecting women and their families throughout this country, and that is also a tremendous bipartisan piece of legislation that we always act on. again, we're not doing the people's business. i yield back to my colleague and the gentleman from maryland who is so correct bringing this to the attention of the house, because, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to be about doing the people's business. i yield the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from california for his leadership, not only for
farm country, but for all people in this country, on behalf of getting people back to work, making jobs available and making sure our farmers are secure and particularly for making sure that we address the epidemic of violence perpetrated against family members, i thank the gentleman for his leadership. and now i yield to somebody who is as strong a voice as we have in the house on behalf of working men and women in this country, lynn woolsey from the state of california. ms. woolsey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for leading this special order. mr. speaker, yesterday we were debating work requirements under the tanf program. well, after we've all listed the issues that the republicans have refused to address in this congress, we can say that we know a bunch of people who should be subjected to a work requirement. they take home a lot of federal
dollars. they're actually on the public dole, but they don't seem to be doing very much work, and i'm talking about the do-nothing republicans in this congress. i don't blame them for wanting to hurry home for the campaigns because a lot of their jobs must be in jeopardy. on the other hand, when they get there they might find their constituents pretty frustrated that they haven't done their jobs and they have not met their responsibilities. every single day that we're here my colleagues across the aisle have put forward bills that have no hope of becoming law and exist only to promote republican talking points. . time and time again they have chosen gridlock and confrontation. they haven't lifted a finger to pass the president's job pack --
package, even though it contains many ideas the republicans supported in the past. they want to destroy health care reform instead of building on it. they refuse to work with democrats on education issues. failing to invest in our children, our children who are 100% of our future. they haven't done a thing to support the middle class and give them hope for the future. it's no wonder the congress has record low approval ratings. but, mr. speaker, most disappointing of all to me is the republican congress' failure to lead on the issue of national security, war, and peace. while we are on recess, the war in afghanistan will turn 11 years. 11 years and more. more than 2,000 americans are dead. thousands more are wounded. the taxpayers are out more than half a trillion dollars. all for a policy that continues
to undermine our national security goals instead of advancing them. while our brave service members are putting life or limb on the line in afghanistan, don't get a recess. when we adjourn they will continue to be very much in session. their district work period is in districts in afghanistan where the taliban is poised to strike. some of the most dangerous places imaginible. -- imaginable. the war isn't morrallly -- morally reprehensible irresponsible. they have barely blanked arch eye when it comes to billions and billions of dollars in misplaced war appropriations. when is the congress going to catch up with the american people? certainly not between now and the election because we have gone home. the people we work for know that
it makes no sense to continue military op passion that is doing more harm than good. creating more terrorists than it's defeating. making us less safe, not more. the american people have made it abundantly clear, they want us to be here. they want us to be debating this war. they are done with this war. they want us to vote to bring our troops home. safely. the country faces huge challenges. our people are crying out for leadership and the majority wants to turn out the lights and actually they have gone home. americans desperately want the congress to do something. something to create jobs and jump-start the economy. something to create peace and security, but the congress -- the republicans in congress have gone home. they have left the work site.
they are gone. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments and i yield to my friend, suzanne bonamici, who is such an effective state legislature -- legislator, was overwhelmingly elected in a special election and every day since that election has been working hard on behalf of hardworking men and women not only in oregon but throughout this country. i know she's disappointed we are walking away from our responsibilities. i yield to my friend. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, mr. hoyer, for bringing to the country's attention the work left undone. when i arrived in congress just a little more than seven months ago, i brought pretty strong message from my constituents back in oregon. and that's that they want us to overcome the gridlock. they want us to get our economy back on track and support policies that create new jobs. of course no one expects this to be an easy task that's why i was encouraged when people said that's why we are here.
unfortunately these conversations have now been kicked down the road for another day -- actually another month while too many of our constituents back home are now facing unemployment, their homes are under water, their childcare costs are rising. several of the colleagues have talked about the failure to pass the farm bill. this typically bipartisan legislation became a staging ground for a fight over nutrition assistance to people who are struggling. now, that bipartisan senate bill has some amendments that were added -- that will help farmers in my district and across this country. we should be able to vote on that bipartisan bill that passed the senate. and as others have mentioned, we are going to go back to our districts and face our constituents who are expecting so much from us. but we did not extend the production tax credit for wind energy. that's a problem in my district. i have companies that are waiting for that. they may now be facing additional layoffs. that policy has long been a
bipartisan policy, supported by many to develop the wind industry in this country. that's going to be hard for us to explain to our constituents. so, mr. hoyer, thank you. there's so much that we can do and should be doing to get our economy back on track. congress is not doing our job. this failure to pass bipartisan commonsense legislation is something everyone in america should know about. we should be staying here representing the best interests of our constituents, helping to put this country back to work. thank you again, mr. hoyer, for yielding and for bringing this important issue to everyone's attention. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. i want to recognize the distinguished gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan, who has been such a leader on so many of these issues. mr. carnahan. mr. carnahan: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this issue as this congress shuts down. it was harry truman from
missouri who coined the term do-nothing congress in 1948. but that congress was 10 times more productive than this republican congress of 2012. to call this congress a do-nothing congress is an insult to the do-nothing congress of 1948. so we are leaving today, earliest this congress has ever left to campaign in an election year in 52 years. look at how disconnected this congress has been from the urgent needs of the american people. 30% of the bills passed were for the purpose of attaching someone's name to a building. we voted to repeal the affordable care act 33 times. the republicans passed 30 jobs message bills that didn't do a thing to create jobs. they voted so often to restrict
women's freedom and access to health care that one female republican lawmaker said, quote, are you kidding me? how many times are we going to vote for this, unquote. and we have voted on the romney-ryan plan to end medicare -- end the medicare guarantee and increase cost to seniors by $6,400. it's no wonder this republican congress has the lowest approval rating ever. there are urgent priorities on the table that many have talked about here today. the middle class tax cuts. the farm bill. the violence against women act. and responsible deficit reduction and president obama's jobs bill. this republican bill wall of obstruction is wreaking havoc on this country, it's leaving a trail of dysfunction, and now republicans are running for the exit door.
to cut their own police losses, they are shutting down this people's house without getting the work done. this congress should be here. our democratic leaders have made it clear. we are ready to do that work. people will be the judge. again, i yield back and thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this order. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials on the top erik of this special order. i -- topic of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. as we have heard the gentleman from maryland say many times, representative is not just a title, it's our job description. we need to hear from our constituents and our
constituents have told us over and over again this year what they want. they want middle class tax relief. they want a farm bill. they want the postal service fixed so it can pay its bills. they want passage of the violence against women act. it's a long list of things that they feel we can do to help americans. we have had an opportunity here from people because the leadership had us -- sent us home a month and a half ago where we could hold town meetings while they allowed us to do nothing here. we heard from our constituents very clearly. not just from a small segment, not just from a few special interests. not just from a few percent for
whom everything seems just fine, thank you, but we heard from all sorts of americans who say, help. please, get to work. you heard this is the least productive congress in a generation, in a long generation. and that's by design. the majority sets the schedule. they schedule very few days in session, very few committee hearings, very few markups. so even the do-nothing congress, as my friend from missouri said, even the congress that harry truman called the do-nothing congress was much more productive than this one. so why did the majority close up shop and head home until after the election? well, the answer i think is pretty clear. they want to campaign and they have decided with their dismal record they need a little more time to campaign. a little time to explain why
they cast 302 votes to limit protections for clean air and clean water. and good land. they need a little more time to explain why the farm bill to help the areas that have been hit by drought, to help the farmers that need crop insurance, hasn't been passed. to be sure it's going to be hard to campaign on the record that they have compiled and maybe they need a little extra time. we don't need extra time to hear from our constituents about their needs. and what they want us to do. i stand with my friend, mr. hoyer, and all of us on this side of the aisle to return to washington any day, any night to do the work that the american people hired us to do to be their representative. i thank my friend. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for his very compelling comment. i know that, mr. speaker, you have heard us speak and the
members have heard us speak and one might say, well, these are democrats speaking about the nonproductivity and nonattention to the people's business of this congress, but some years ago, just a few years ago, four years ago the republican party, our friends on that side of the aisle, nominated john mccain to be their president. what does john mccain say of this congress? the worst since 1947 statistically. the worst ever as far as unconcerned. senator john mccain told reporters wednesday when asked to assess this congress. that was september 19, 2012, just a few days ago. bipartisan observation. this walk away congress is the least effective in which i have served and i have been here for 31 years. i want to yield to my friend who came to congress the same year i did. who unfortunately is leaving, one of the great leaders of sh
congress and responsible for putting the referee back on the field so we will not have another financial meltdown that plunged this country almost into depression, the distinguished member from massachusetts, barney frank. mr. frank: i thank the democratic whip and i thank him for the leadership he provided during his years as majority leader when we were able to do some things that -- we are talking about what this congress didn't do. i suppose in some ways we ought to be happy because some of what they said they wanted to do would have about totally destructive. this is the party that let the financial community run riot for years when they had both the white house and both houses of congress. did no regulation so that we got the worst recession in 80 years, near depression, because of their irresponsibility. and they were threatening to undo it. unfortunately, they were able to accomplish one thing. one of the things we did was to give the full regulatory
agencies the power to regulate derivatives. a serious, obscure, powerful instrument that was the major cause of our crisis. while they were not able to repeal the rules, they were able to reduce the funding of the agencies that have to deal with this complex matter to where they have not been very effective. that's one of the things they were able to do. undo by financial stealth what we tried to get done. . there may be some implication they are not willing to work hard. now, let's be very clear. the reason we have such a dismal record here is not because they are lazy, our republican colleagues. it's more because of a word which rhymes with lazy which the rules will prohibit me from using. the problem is with this. in 2010 a significant number of republicans were elected who do not understand the importance of governance and a free
enterprise society in which there has to be a private sector creating goods and services and a public sector that works with it. that's why we have no postal bill, although the senate passed one, why we have no agriculture bill, why they couldn't pass a highway bill and had to be dependent on the democratic senate to pass one so they could catch on to it. they simply do not understand the importance of our copping together and doing things in -- coming together and doing things in this complex society that cannot be done by the private sector. it is an extremism. it's not lazyness. it is extremism that grips the republican party so they are not able to discharge their normal functions of government. and by the way, there's one particular action -- inaction that i want to stress. it has to do with fannie mae and freddie mac. when my republican friends are out of power, they know exactly what to do about housing. when they're in power they forget. it's a peculiar form of apple nearbyia. from -- amnesia.
from 1995 to 2006 they controlled the congress and did nothing, nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac. we came in 2007 and took action and put them in a conservatorship and stopped them from losing money. the next step was to go forward with replacing them. we said that we would do that. we did financial reform first. the republicans said in 2009 and 2010, you must do reform of fannie mae and freddie mac. and we thought financial reform came first because we already stopped the bleeding. then they came to power in 2011 and they've done nothing, and the reason they've done nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac and the reason they've done nothing about the post office and agriculture and didn't do anything about the highways is very simple. they're a party torn between extremists and people who are afraid of extremists, people who will not take them on. mr. speaker, who will not bring an agriculture bill to the floor that might very well pass because he's intimidated by his own tea party extremist wing which rules him.
they could not come forward with housing legislation because what a majority knows should be done to put in some kind of federal private cooperation without the mistakes we've made in the past, they couldn't get the votes for it because their extremists had a veto over it. last point, mr. whip. i want to talk a little bit about bipartisanship. in 2007, things began to buckle in our financial system. and i as chairman of the committee worked closely with mr. paulson. in 2008, the bush administration came to us and you know what they wanted? you remember. a stimulus. that terrible word, stimulus. george bush, that radical, and ben bernanke, his appointee of the fed, and hank paulson, secretary of the treasury, said let's do a stimulus. this democrat leadership worked with them. then speaker pelosi negotiated. and then later on when the economy began to collapse because of financial dissolution, hank paulson came to us and asked for cooperation and we gave him cooperation. from 2007 to 2008 we had a very
bipartisan approach in the economic crisis, and then one thing happened, barack obama became president and bipartisanship disappeared because extremism took over the republican party, first they were in the minority and now they're in the majority and nothing happened. i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would remind him, the leader talked about it, he's talked about it. mr. speaker, i i will you will recall. george bush, republican president of the united states, hank paulson, republican secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke, who i think is neither republican or democrat, but appointed by the republican -- mr. frank: he is republican but three times appointed by george bush to -- mr. hoyer: and came to us the country is in trouble, at risk of going into a depression. we need you to act. and who acted? the democrats in a bipartisan response to president bush. who walked away? 2/3 of the republican party, the president's party. 2/3 of them walked away, and as
a result we failed the first time. we came back and added another 30 democrats, 172, and the republicans couldn't even get to 100 to support their own president to keep this country out of depression. ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, as the previous election approached, election unveiled the long list of pledges. their pledge to america reads, and i quote, plan to create jobs and economic uncertainty and make america more competitive. must be the first urgent domestic priority of our government. so first we offer a plan to get people working again. that's what they said. we are still waiting for that plan, and we have walked away. 21 months later, republicans have not offered a comprehensive plan to create jobs and boost competitiveness, nor have they allowed democrats to bring major items, make it in america, expand manufacturing, create jobs, give good-paying jobs with good security to americans and then
down to agencies and job creators and small businesses that service those manufacturers. when president obama proposed his plan, the american jobs act, which economists say would have expanded by a million or million and a half jobs, republicans blocked it outright, not brought to the floor, not given the vote. instead of making jobs their priority, it seems to be last on their to-do list. it's the first concern for millions and millions of americans and for our side of the aisle. mr. speaker, let me read another excerpt from the republican pledge. with commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops, we will roll back government spending, putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. however, over the last 21 months, republicans have torpedoed every serious attempt to reach agreement on deficit reduction. why? no revenues from the very wealthy in america.
not because we don't like the very wealthy, not because we want to penalize the ve wealthy, but because we need to keep our country on a financially secured path. and those of us on this floor can contribute a little more to that effort. push to the extreme by their tea party wing house republicans early on embraced an our way or no way that made compromise impossible. refusing to accept any solution that included revenues or that ended unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. that's why the middle-class tax cut passed overwhelmingly in the united states -- while passed by a majority in the united states senate, languishes here unconsidered which would keep 98% of america from any concern about having their taxes increase on january 1. why? to protect the 2%. how sad. in pursuit of their extreme
budget agenda they pushed our country to the brink of default , for the first time ever the most credit worthy nation on earth being downgraded by the standard & poor's rating agency. to avert that default, republicans insisted on creating the sequester that so many of them now lament. it was their creation and in fact in their cap, cut and balance bill, what is the default positions they take? sequester. meanwhile, led by chairman paul ryan, republicans passed two budgets that would end medicare as we know it, end the guarantee, end the security that gives to people who are seniors and going to be seniors, gut social programs that keep millions out of poverty and doesn't balance over the next 30 years. i want to when i talk about this, susan collins, republican member of the united states
senate, i showed you john mccain, mr. speaker, she says it was very frustrating to have worked on legislation that really matters to our country like the cybersecurity bill and legislation to save the postal service and just have them gather dust. in other words, she worked in the senate across the aisle with democrats and sent that bill here, both those bills, and we have not acted. we have walked away. in their pledge they say we offer a plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act with commonsense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting american jobs. both of those objective, mr. speaker, we have made our point. walking away has been the practice of this congress. not getting the work done has been the practice of this congress. how lamentable it is for the american people. but as president obama said, they have a choice. may they make it well. and i ye. -- and i yield back the balance of my time.
it was amazing because former speaker pelosi and i were on exactly the same wave length. she was asking, are we better off now than we were four years ago, and i was thinking the same thing that she was. how could people who perpetuated this economic disaster ask that question? but she asked it any way. heard our friends talk about the economic disaster. some of us remember back into the early point of the 21st century when there was an effort by first term president bush, george w. bush, calling for reform of fannie and freddie and i seem to recall my
friend from massachusetts who resisted such reform. in fact, there were people here on the democratic side of the aisle that resisted such reform. they prevented such reform. there were members on the republican side -- not all of them -- but there were members who were calling for reform of fannie mae and freddie mac. but it didn't happen. and in fact our friends across the aisle were in control of the house and senate for four years. in 2005 and 2006 as a freshman, i often heard our colleagues across the aisle asking how we could do such a terrible, terrible thing of spending $100 billion to $200 billion more than we had coming in. little did we know -- and they
were right. they were right. we should not have been spending $160 billion more than we had coming in. the democrats were right. and because republicans did not stay true to what we were promised, our leadership just wouldn't dig in and stop it even though we had a republican president. we had a republican president. don't want to hurt his feelings. we spent $160 billion more than we had coming in. so the american public weren't thrilled what they heard from the democrats but they figured they'd give them a chance. so november, 2006, democrats, who had promised to end the deficit spending, took over and the deficit spending, rather
than coming under control, went out of sight. they passed the dodd-frank bill. it has historic overregulation of community banks. now why would a group who is so upset with wall street pass legislation that devastates community banks that are closest to the community, know the borrowers the best, that had been the real foundation of this country, why would they strangle out community banks with this massive overregulation? it really doesn't hurt the massive big banks. . well, someone said years ago, follow the money. and if you look at the money that is -- has been contributed
to campaigns for many years, you find out that the wall street executives and immediate family normally donate about four times more to democrats than they do to republicans. now, the wall street executives have to endure being called fat cats by a democratic president, but they know perhaps it's a wink and a nod, i'll call you fat cats but i'm going to destroy your competition. we'll get rid of the community banks. we'll strangle them with overregulation. they can't make loans. we'll threaten them through the fdic and the regulators to permit them from making loans that they know it's a good reliable people that have never missed a payment, we'll threaten them not to do that and we'll choke them out and the only people that would be left are the big investment banks on wall
street that got us into the big mess in the first place. so if you follow the money and follow the contributions, you find out, gee. democrats talk about wall street as if the republicans, but they are four times more -- there are four times more democrats on wall street as executives than there are republicans. what a shock. because they talk a good game i thought for so long that wall street executives must be republicans the way the democrats talk. not so. president obama got four times more contributions from executives and immediate family than did a guy named john mccain. we look further. what about jobs. how about when we have a disaster by british petroleum who has been allowed to operate in the gulf coast with nearly -- with 800 or so egregious safety
violations, but that's ok. according to the obama administration, they didn't want to step in. and at the very time deep water horizon had blown out and this administration, the obama administration, should have been all over them. they -- the executives of british petroleum were negotiating with the democrats to be the one big oil company that rolled out support in favor of cap and trade. i said i wouldn't use the term crap and trade anymore so i'll avoid saying that. they had a big oil company that was willing to come out and support cap and trade. so certainly this administration and the democrats in the house and senate wouldn't want to do anything too detrimental to british petroleum because they are going to come out on our side. that meant that they ended up
actually believing b.p. when they said we'll get it under control. they didn't get it under control. so then there was this bipartisan group of experts, peer reviewing what was going on in the gulf coast. and they came back with a report that made recommendations what should be done. one of those recommendations was not to have a moratorium on drilling. not only of the deep water but also the very shallow water. they didn't recommend it. and yet this administration goes through and changes the report the way it's printed so that it makes it sound like these experts recommended a moratorium. they did not. but that's the way this administration wanted to manipulate that the american public believed so that the president could sign off on a moratorium. and we other than those precious
lives that were lost, and those who were harmed out there on the deep water horizon rig because this administration allowed them to continue to operate, the biggest damage to the people in the gulf area was from the president's moratorium. there were people who were making $75,000 in salary, working on rigs. that was minimum, basically, from what i was told by people that work on rigs. and that income stopped and those families had nothing because this president provided a report into making people believe that it said we should cut off drilling in the gulf coast and it devastated so many in the gulf coast region. if you want to look at what the president really thinks about big oil companies, it's very similar to what is said and done
about wall street. they call the wall street executives all kinds of names, wink, wink, nod, nod we are going to pass legislation that eliminates your competition and then you'll be charge and then maybe you can make eight times as many contributions to democrats as you do republicans. and both wall street and among big oil. how? well, if you read the bill that president obama put together it was the second american jobs act that was filed, because i filed the first one, because he ran around the country for weeks saying pass the american jobs act. there wasn't one filed. i said if he's going to run around america saying pass the american jobs act there ought to be one. so i put a two-page bill together. would have elimb named the 35% taff we put on every american made good by any company in america. if we eliminate that 35% tariff, wills -- also called a corporate
tax, you would see companies flocking into america. you would see people with jobs. they wouldn't be standing in line trying to get food stamps, standing in line trying to get more government help. they would have a job and all the pride that comes from that, of doing a good job, and making your own money, and making your own way. but we have a group in this congress in both ends -- the majority in the senate and minority down here and certainly not all of my democratic friends, but they think the best way to help a country is just to give away more of other people's money. if you look at the president's proposal in his so-called american jobs act, he tells me i'm going to really take after big oil, well, i was one who actually read all 135 or 138 pages, whatever it was, and in
that last part is where he got around to big oil except it doesn't hurt big oil. it absolutely devastates, it would eliminate all of the small independent oil companies operating in america. and those small independent oil companies happen to drill and operate nearly 95% of all the oil and gas wells in america. he takes away deductions of the normal cost of doing business that anybody in business is allowed to take as a deduction. why not? it's the cost of doing business. it's not profit. that way you only tax the profit. and it eliminates deductions that actually do not help big oil companies. they can't take those deductions. only the small companies can take that deduction. so the president's plan when you really look at it instead of looking whether he actually did or look at what he -- instead of
looking at what he says, look at what he did. what he did was provide the elimination of indpent oil and gas companies in america and you don't have to have been to an ivy league school, in fact you are better off maybe in figuring this out, if you didn't, because he had a harvard economic visor at the time, and of course i think the world of him, he's the best economic advisor any president's ever had despite his harvard education, but you don't have to have an ivy league education to understand that if this president had been successful in eliminating every independent oil and gas company as his bill would have done, not only will you eliminate millions of jobs, including those who derive jobs from the independent oil and gas business, as well as business itself, not only would you do that, you would eliminate
most of the production in america. what does that do? that drives the price of oil and gasoline way up. dramatically up. natural gas, oil, all of that goes dramatically up because the major oil companies in the world are not interested in coming in and operating smaller wells. they go for the big ones. that means there's no competition to the massive oil and gas companies in the world. i was shocked to find out in our natural resources committee that if you look at all the oil and gas -- the big oil companies in the world, and you see them listed just by how much they got in reserves, the american companies like exxon, they are way down the list. the biggest oil companies are those operating as single companies, opec -- in opec nations. and what would this president do?
he would do what he has done repeatedly. he would help foreign countries. he would help the bigger folks, the bigger oil companies. i'm sure it would have benefited the fat cats as he calls them on wall street, but it would have put out of business, 94%, 95% of oil and gas wells in america. that meant everybody's price went up. how sad is it that up of the few promises, it may be the main promise that he kept, was to drive up the cost of energy in america. now, i love having quose from people who talk -- quotes from people who talk about congress being the worst congress that they can recall when -- especially republicans, when the body at the other end of the hall that is not -- has not
fulfilled the obligation that they are required by law to do, and that's pass a budget. not in over three years. how are we going to get anything done in congress when we got a senate down there controlled by democrats who say we are not going to do our job? and we are going to leave over and over on recess and we are never going to do our job because if people saw what our budget really is, they would get mad at us. we don't want a budget. we want to keep spending at these ridiculously high levels and if we work through a budget, we might have to do what the house did when they worked through a budget, we might actually have to cut some things. and how incredibly disingenuous for anyone in america who would stand up and say, gee, we really want to bring down our spending
and yet everything they pros pose -- propose except for the military creates more spending. how disingenuous of anybody in america stands up and say these republicans want to cut medicare. they are going to destroy medicare. because if they have been awake during any of the actual bills that have been passed by the democrats, and especially during that whole long ordeal when the democrats had the house, they had the senate, they had the white house, and america made clear we do not want obamacare, they said we don't care. we want it. it's going to be more government control. it's really -- it really was about the g.r.a., government running everything. not just health care. but by passage of obamacare without one single republican
vote, not a one, it was completely done with democratic votes. $716 billion in cuts to medicare. the democrats voted that in. the democratic president signed it in. it devastates medicare more than anything that's ever been done to medicare. and it was without one single republican vote. so how in the world could somebody come in here or anywhere and blame republicans for wanting to cut medicare? now, i blame my leadership, anybody that's around can find it, we should never have agreed with the democrats to that stupid supercommittee deficit ceiling bill. we should not have. they tonight want $300 billion, $400 billion in cuts in medicare, which would be a sequester, if we don't -- so they will come together.
we'll reach an agreement. and i pointed out these are the same people that cut $716 billion out of medicaid -- medicare in obamacare, so, of course, i pointed out if they don't have this supercommittee structure and refuse to let there be any agreement, then there is no one in the country that can be blamed for cutting medicare soap the democrats. but if they get this bill passed on the deficit raising bill, and it requires a supercommittee to reach agreement, if they can get that through and get us to go along with it thinking that they are going to actually reach an agreement, then they can stone wall and not reach an agreement no matter what we offer. . then then they get a two fer. they get billions in cuts to our national security at a time
when our national security hasn't been in this kind of jeopardy since 9/11. actually, on 9/11 we weren't in that kind of jeopardy as we are in today, but under this administration we have seen a win in iraq turn into a loss because of the just total abandonment of what we created in the way of a friend in iraq. maliki, no friend of mine, says i can't come back in the country, but if i put myself in maliki's situation, leader of iraq, and i know boim said we're leaving, -- obama said we're leaving, not leaving anybody anything and we're leaving and you see americans pulling out, you see all in radical stuff going on across the border in iran, you realize america's not going to be around to keep any stability, i'm going to have to start doing what iran says.
and so what do we do? we created a country -- we had a victory. everybody said, even though president obama as a senator, was against the surged, we worked, we won and then he pulls us out that he snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. and now you got iraq that is under a heavy influence by iran. thank you, president obama. we got a syria that we got syria that is run by a tyrant. perhaps syria was the only place we should have intervened and this president still hasn't gone in to help there. oh, no. because the 57 states that make up the organization of islamic conference, they were all for us going into egypt and going into libya and taking out two people with whom this administration had agreements, they loved the idea of america taking out and helping take out people that were allies of ours. they love that. and some of us in this body were saying, don't do this.
we don't know who's going to take over. this could be some radical that will empower the radicals more. i mean, you look across tunisia and libya and egypt and iraq and iraq and syria, lebanon, you look at these countries and come on over to afghanistan that this president is losing as we speak and pakistan which has been harming us all they could while still taking our money -- thank you, secretary of state clinton and president obama. you look and you say, oh, my gosh, this is the makings, this is the beginnings, a massive beginning of a new ottoman empire that president obama can take great credit for. we're in big trouble here in america but, wow, look at what he's helped do in the middle east. a new ottoman empire. thank you, president barack hussein obama. this will be quite a legacy for you. i'm not saying that he's not
christian. that's between him and god. he's helped jump-start a new ottoman empire and left our friend and ally, israel, so vulnerable in this sea of radicalism that he's helped bring to the surface and how could any of us who were around in 1979 not be reminded of president carter, who's got to be thinking, thank you i am not the worst president in the world, thought we'd turn our back on the shah, not the nicest guy, but creating some form of stability. but when he was gone president carter told khomeini a man of peace. what a welcomed thing. he came in and he was a supreme leader when our embassy was attacked which is an act of war, just like it is in libya, just like in cairo, it's an act of war. any commander would make it clear except president carter and president obama. you've attacked american soil,
you've attacked us under everybody's form of international law. you either straighten it out or we're coming in because we have a right under international law to protect ourselves and if it means taking your government out because of what you've done or allowed to be done or help foment, then we do it. and in egypt, this administration helped bring about what they thought would be a great thing, an arab spring, and it's turned into an american winter. at the same time this administration was blessing and loving the occupy wall street movement even though they were clearly a bunch of democrats, bunch of kids with ipads, iphones out there. rape, drugs, all kinds of illegality and immorality out there abounding and this administration is saying this
is a good thing. you see the signs all over the place. let me see. oh, no. occupy movement, you'd see these signs like this. acab. all cops are -- some people said bad. but i've been corrected. it has to do -- the b stands for something like fatherless children. that's occupy oakland. you can see the pictures. acab. acab everywhere. well, i was a little shocked when my staff points out, look at that. this is on the wall in egypt, and i need somebody to explain how among all this arabic writing by the radicals that have charged our embassy in egypt, how in the middle of all
this arabic to we get acab? who's doing it. some type of conclusion. who among those radicals in egypt is writing acab which is what you see at all the occupy movements in america? somebody's got some explaining to do, i would think, but not to this administration, because this administration thinks the occupy movement and the arab spring is a great thing even though it's brought to power radicals who want to do destroy america, who want to destroy israel. how ustrating for our friend, israel, and when we have prends come in here in the last hour -- friends come in here in the last hour talking about fannie and freddie on a personal basis, i like barney frank. he is a brilliant guy. but it's not that hard to go
back and find quotes from him about the wonderful condition fannie and freddie were in, and it's not hard to find people here on capitol hill that can explain how he stood in the way of the reforms that some here on capitol hill wanted to do. we also heard from him in 2002 that some didn't understand congress and a free society. well, they were called extremists. these freshman that came in saying, you know what -- these freshmen that came in saying, you know what, everybody should pay their fair share. it shouldn't be 51% of americans paying for everyone else just because these democrats want to keep people beholden to them. because once we get one more then half of all the voters who are getting more than they're putting in, we lost the country. it will be in complete demise.
it may be 10 years or so, but once we get to that point, historically you do not get that country back. and we would not either absent a miracle of god. we were told during the conventions the republicans do not have a franchise on god. everybody in the democratic convention, we love god. we worship god. we love israel. we like jews. we heard all this stuff. until there was a vote and holy cow, we saw plain and clear that everybody in the democratic convention does not want god mentioned. they don't want to hear about god. they don't want to hear about jerusalem being the capital of israel. they don't want to. they side more apparently with palestinians than they do those who were possessing and in that land 1,600 years before there was a man ever talked about named mohammed.
king david was there in hebron saying, oh, do the israelis have a history in this land? it's where david ruled for seven years, about -- before mohammed. so how would they not be talking about that land? i was talking with prime minister netanyahu about the history in the land. he mentioned the story of bengurian who led the rag tag forces to fight their way back up to jerusalem after overwhelming forces had driven them out. but the story was -- and this was the first i heard it when the prime minister mentioned it to me, but i heard it a number of times since. and he said, he was challenged. what is your voucher for claiming this land?
and prime minister netanyahu used the word bible. i'm sure it was a torah. he said a bible and yelled this is my voucher. did they have a history in the land? how blind do you have to be to not see it? cap and trade legislation. thankful he we have a handful of enough friends on the democratic side of the aisle that we were able to stop that or it would have tripled, quadrupled the price of gasoline. it would have devastated injury -- industry. industry would have had to leave an even bigger numbers from this country. we were told about the bush stimulus, that they got bipartisan votes on the bush
stimulus. well, i guess so. anytime either party talks about giving away other people's money, we're going to get a bunch of democrats to go along with the republicans that mistakenly agree to that. i'm the one that asked president bush, stand right here on this aisle that came by. we found out that $40 billion of the $160 billion bush sthuss was going to go to -- stimulus was going to go to people as rebates even though they didn't pay income tax. that's when i asked the question, standing right there, mr. president, how do you give a rebate to somebody that didn't put any bait in? it's not a rebate. it's welfare. call it what it is. my friends across the aisle in the last hour said they couldn't get 100 votes to support president bush's effort to save the economy. he's talking about tarp. oh, i would have supported president bush's efforts to
save the economy, but unfortunately that really good man, smarter than most people around here give him credit for, witte, clever, just a joy to be around -- witty, clever, just a joy to be around but the problem was he listened to hank paulson and his cronies who were going to bail out their buddies who give 4-1 to democrats over republicans. that's what happened. so paulson did get his way, but we didn't have 100 people on the republican side of the aisle vote for that because there's fdic former chair named eyes action, they had -- isaacs, they had recommendations. the projection was we have at least $700 billion in banks overseas that american companies and american
individuals earned overseas and if they bring it in the u.s. they'll have to pay 40%, 50% tax with all the interest and penalties so they just leave it in banks overseas. we're the only country that double taxes because we don't let people bring in money without hammering the heck out of them even though they've done a favor, did a good thing and earned money overseas and want to bring it to america. the proposal was, all you have to say, look, instead of borrowing 41 cents, 42 cents out of every $1 and coming up with $700 billion to give away to hank paulson so he can enrich his friends and under that bill, i read it, it was a disaster. i couldn't vote for that. i read it. let him give money away to anybody he wants to, loan money to whoever he wants to, pay more than fair market value, in his mind it might help our economy, we don't do that