Providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 72) directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 73 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 73 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 72. It provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate, divided by the committees outlined in H. Res. 72, and provides the minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This legislation is simple, direct, and easy to understand. The text of the three-page bill was posted last week on the Rules Committee Web site. This legislation is an attempt and an effort to provide more transparency and accountability in the government regulatory process, something that my colleagues and I have called for numerous times over the last two Congresses.

The legislation before us today calls for 10 House committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effects on destroying jobs and economic growth.

With the current high unemployment rate, it is essential we do everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce government rules and regulations that impede job creation and economic growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose unnecessary paperwork and cost on small businesses, and that result in large-scale and often unnecessary unfunded mandates on employers.

That is exactly what this legislation would do, and we are on the floor today to talk about this as an important component of allowing America to get back to work and to highlight these rules and regulations that stifle not only investment but also job creation.

Every single Member of Congress understands and believes that regulations are needed to provide the rules, safety, and structures for this society to function properly. While regulations are important, they can also cross that fine line and can become too burdensome. It is essential to strike a balance to ensure that the imposed rules and regulations do not lead to higher costs and less productive societies.

The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations each year with about 500 to 700 that are reviewed by the White House.

According to a recent report from the Small Business Administration, the total cost of Federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion a year from the U.S. economy; $1.75 trillion is what this burden is on the free enterprise system. Additionally, the study shows that regulatory and paperwork costs were found to be more onerous for smaller firms than their larger counterparts. More specifically, the costs of regulations per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585, a 36 percent difference between the costs incurred per employee by a larger firm.

This is absolutely outrageous. This is outrageous because small business is the backbone and the engine of our economy. It represents 99.7 percent of all employers. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years while employing over half of all private sector employees. One of the fastest ways to put Americans back to work, Republicans believe, is to limit the regulatory expenses that these small firms have to comply with simply to satisfy Federal Government regulations.

Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. Regulatory burdens are hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most basic and fundamental freedoms in America. Congress and this administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new regulations. They must also review, study, and eliminate unnecessary rules that are already on the books.

On January 18 of last month, President Obama signed an Executive order to provide a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations. In an op-ed placed in the Wall Street Journal last month by the President, he clearly states that ``sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect upon growth and jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud and I appreciate the President for recognizing this, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand what we are attempting to do today, and that is to support as best as we can not only the ideals that the President talked about but also a focus on these rules and regulations that stifle innovativeness, create costs, and ruin jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, while the President is now taking a step in the right direction when it comes to regulation, in the last fiscal year alone the Obama administration unleashed 43 major new regulations that will cost America more than, new, $28 billion annually. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, from raising the price of cars, where we buy food, where we eat, and every single one of these stands in the way of making the free enterprise more efficient and somehow does not help in creation of jobs.

The President will have to take a step back from some of the major bills that he signed last year, and I believe he can do that by employing the ideas that he had in this op-ed. He can do something about it, and that is join Republicans who today are attempting to work with the President. If the President is serious about reducing regulatory burdens impacting every American, we can do this job together. Fifteen of the 42 regulations proposed last year were from the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. Another five stemmed from the ObamaCare bill, and 10 others come from the Environmental Protection Agency, or what is known as the EPA, including the first mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

The annual compliance costs constitute only a part of the economic burden of regulations on business. Many of these new rules curtail the purchase of new equipment, conversions of industrial practices, and are about revising data collection and reporting procedures. One example is the new restriction on short sales from the Frank-Dodd bill that requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to make modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms for gathering and managing this information that will cost over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, that defies balance and I think ultimate accountability of what the regulations should be about.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to direct our committees to take the first step in reining in Big Government, reducing our deficit, and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. This simple bill is three pages long, and it shines the light on the regulatory process and provides the necessary transparency and accountability on Federal agencies that has been lacking for years.

My Republican colleagues and I remain committed to putting America back to work through creation of new jobs. This legislation is a way to be a part of that good start. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend the gentleman from Florida. I would like to state that the bills we have done in the Rules Committee during these 12 bills have been about original jurisdiction by the Rules Committee, which is what this bill is. This bill is a jurisdictional issue where the Rules Committee, through the legislation that my name sits on as the chief sponsor, is directing other committees to have hearings, to be part of an open process, to do the things that will be necessary not only for minority participation but any Member who chooses in these committees to come and have their voices heard, for hearings to be held, for thoughtful people across this country to come and provide us information about the way they see the regulatory burdens that are being placed upon them. If someone thinks that what we are doing today is all about trying to stifle regular order, it's completely the opposite. Nine-and-a-half hours of debate, which is unheard of for a three-page bill, is all about regular order and is exactly what I've been arguing for for years. That's what the Republicans are delivering today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Notwithstanding that the gentleman brought up some good ideas about job creation, I would like to just put it into some bit of context. Today what we are trying to do is to gather steam behind rules and regulations that stifle the ability for the free enterprise system to employ people. But in the larger scheme of things, our friends on the other side are upset because what we as Republicans are going to do is to find a way to live up to our campaign promises to cut spending during the year by $100 billion.

Now some people say, oh, that's not enough amount, or it's too big of an amount because it will mean all these draconian cuts across the government. Well, I would remind this House that $100 billion is a small part of the $3,000 billion spending plan that the Congress has already given to government--$3,000 billion--and what we are talking about not just today and not just over the past few weeks but taking $100 billion and trying to take that as a burden off the American people. The reason why is because 30 percent of all government spending today or more ends up as debt, meaning that we have to borrow it from somebody else.

``But this is so important, we've got to make sure we do it.'' Well, Republicans disagree. We think not only a review of regulatory process but a review of spending is important in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I refer to what might be a sheet of paper that was in print described as Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations. Within this paper, there is a paragraph, a short paragraph that I would like to read which perhaps embodies exactly why we are here today:

``Business leaders say government regulations, including those being written for health care overall and financial reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high unemployment.''

In fact, the Department of Treasury describes where we are as chronic unemployment for today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can see. Last year at some point even the longest projection by this government showed no net new job creation. That is what Republicans have inherited. We intend to be serious about what we're doing, and we intend to make sure that the American people see this for what it is, and that is an opportunity by Congress to work on the issues that they're demanding.

[From FoxBusiness.com, Jan. 18, 2011]

Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he would order a

government-wide review of regulations with the goal of

eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S.

economy less competitive.

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama said

some government regulations have placed ``unreasonable

burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and

have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''

He said he would require that in the future government

agencies ``ensure that regulations protect our safety, health

and environment while promoting economic growth.''

The president has recently ratcheted up efforts to soothe

relations with the business community, after alienating

corporate America through rhetorical attacks against Wall

Street and an agenda heavy on regulation.

Business leaders say government regulations, including

those being written for the healthcare overall and financial

reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high

unemployment.

``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations

that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result

of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both

parties and the influence of special interests in Washington

over decades,'' Obama wrote.

Noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the

economy, he said he would direct the government to make a

greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on

them.

While vowing to eliminate rules that are ``not worth the

cost, or that are just plain dumb,'' the president said his

administration wouldn't shy away from writing new rules to

address obvious gaps in government oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I will tell you that he is so pleased that we have not only this bill that has been brought to the floor, but he is so pleased that we are taking the time to speak about the facts of the case. And one fact is that the first bill that we took up was the bill to repeal ObamaCare. It had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. It had everything to do with a bill which has caused an amazing number of regulations.

And I would like to quote, if I can, a fact that, since the passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is known as ObamaCare, has added 6,123 pages of regulations, and the Federal Register has printed those just over the last 9 months. Secondly, according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, which is nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year. That means that the ability for a person to have to fill out all of their paperwork, the cost of that is twice what we even collected in taxes. There is a balance here that's been overrun.

House Republicans: Identifying and Removing Onerous Job-Destroying

Regulations

This week, House Republicans are bringing a resolution to

the floor directing the committees to inventory and review

federal agency rules and regulations that may unfairly harm

the ability to create jobs and grow the economy.

While the nation suffers from 21 straight months of

unemployment at 9 percent or higher, President Obama and

congressional Democrats have doubled down on their strategy

to burden job creators with more government red tape.

With the U.S. economy struggling and American families hard

pressed to pay their bills and put food on the table, the

costs of federal regulations have never been more

significant. The fact is that federal regulations increase

the cost of doing business and destroy jobs.

Undue and archaic government red tape takes money out of

the hands of families and businesses. Agencies should not be

authorized to heap billions in new added costs on the economy

without reducing another burden elsewhere.

Job-Crushing Regulations--By the Numbers

During the Democrats' leadership of Congress, unemployment

skyrocketed from 4.6 percent to 9 percent as the economy has

lost more than 6.8 million jobs.

With 243 expected rulemakings from the Democrats' permanent

bailout of Wall Street law, and the inestimable number of

regulations to come from ObamaCare's government takeover of

healthcare, the President's newfound concern for the

regulatory burdens facing employers does not match his

actions over the past two years.

The Obama administration has not shied away from flexing

its regulatory muscle since taking office. A recent study by

the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major

regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total

economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at

least 1981.

Since passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) has added 6.123 pages of

regulations and Federal Register notices in just its first

nine months.

According to a September 2010 report from the Small

Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to

$1.75 trillion annually, nearly twice as much as all

individual income taxes collected last year.

Who Is Paying for this Reeulatory Burden? America's Small Businesses

and American Workers

The cost of regulations is felt even harder by America's

small business owners, the engine of our nation's economy.

According to the Small Business Administration, the average

small business with less than 20 employees faces a cost of

$10,585 in federal regulations each year per worker they

employ.

Businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend on average 36

percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with

federal regulations. These small employers represent 99.7

percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all

new jobs over the past 15 years.

The cost of federal regulations to small businesses must

either be passed on to the consumer or workers, either in the

form of lower wages or a shortage of jobs that would have

been otherwise paid for with money spent complying with

federal regulations. Imagine if small businesses could put

the $10,000 they spend on federal regulations directly back

into new jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) coming down to the floor. I would like to let him know that we are doing 9\1/2\ hours of debate, and at the end there will be an opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions that has been lacking for the previous 4 years by my colleagues on the other side, that they extended to us. So you will have every single opportunity, if you want, just to use your brainpower and put together that great jobs bill that you want to talk about.

But I would say to the gentleman, we have chosen to talk about the things which stifle jobs, and we believe that as we talk about these that a lot of the American people will get it. For instance, if you lived out in the country--I will just bring up one example.

The EPA has issued a draft policy doubling the stringency of the standard by which dust is regulated--dust. Now, the Speaker would understand dust because he is from a rural State. I understand dust from some perspective, being from Texas. But the EPA regulates dust, and they are going to issue a draft policy--or already did--that doubles the stringency of the standard. Many farming activities kick up dust: tilling the field, operating a feed lot, driving farm vehicles, even dusty roads.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

I continue to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman engaging me. I would also make my point that the economic impact of the regulation of dust that it will have on farmers, that it will have on people who live in rural areas, is enormous. And this is part of that overall cost. It's not a hidden cost; it's a real cost that makes us unproductive and costs consumers a lot of money. And this is the kind of discussion we're going to have.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to be here today on this important bill. What I want to say to you is continually we need to make the point that this bill is all about referring to committees the opportunity for them to look at onerous rules and regulations.

I would like to bring up just one more burdensome regulation. Milk contains animal fat, and the EPA has suggested that milk storage could be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. It is estimated that it would cost U.S. dairy farmers thousands of dollars to come into compliance with such a regulation that would be exactly the same as large oil tanks. The EPA, only after congressional pressure, has signaled that it would finalize an exemption for milk. However, it has yet to do so and continues to drag its feet. Meanwhile, farmers are having to face what is a burdensome regulation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Big Government is still alive and well on the floor today. Big Government is going to spend people's money from back home. Spending, spending, spending--all about the government.

Well, that's why the Republican Party is the majority party on the floor of the House of Representatives now, because the American people saw the effects of huge government, bigger government, and rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, you heard me earlier say that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to putting Americans back to work. We believe that what happens in Washington can aid and help the free enterprise system by telling the story, putting the spotlight, showing the light of day on the rules and regulations that are costing business $1.7 trillion a year, which takes resources away from the activities that they would have of job creation and keeping our job growth, innovation, and our economy stable.

While small businesses are getting hit harder than any other firms in the United States, now is the time to provide that relief to these businesses so that they can reinvest in themselves, create jobs, and level out the economy. This Republican Congress remains committed to scaling back some of the 43 major regulations imposed in the last year by the Obama administration that would add $28 billion annually.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to me that we must do better.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 73 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the

Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority

Leader or their respective designees. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-

minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2--of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I would like to get back to first principles here. The First Amendment, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

This Patriot Act represents a wholesale abandonment of the right to assemble peaceably, of the right of freedom of association. This Patriot Act is a square violation of the Fourth Amendment, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Now, I can trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are decent people. This isn't about Democrat versus Republican. It's not about a Democratic President. It's not about if there was a Republican President or if we will have one in the future. This is about something actually much more important than all of us and then whoever might be an executive. It's about the Constitution of the United States.

Congress made a mistake when it passed the Patriot Act. Instead of sunsetting it and being done with it, we kept the provisions going. Some of them were made permanent. This law today, we seek to reauthorize certain sections of the Patriot Act. What I maintain is that what we have here is a destructive undermining of constitutional principles. We can't just say, well, let's trust our friends to do the right thing. This is about the Constitution. This is beyond friendship. This is beyond party. This is beyond who is the President. So I disagree with President Obama on this.

It's interesting. At this very moment that our President is on television celebrating the tremendous movement towards the free will of the people of Egypt who have suffered real repression and suppression of their basic liberties, we can celebrate something happening thousands of miles away, but it would be much better for America if we celebrated our Constitution.

What we have done with the Patriot Act, we have given the government enormous power. We have given the government the authority to reach deeply into people's private lives, into their business affairs without a court order. We need to think about that. Some people say they don't want government involved in certain things. Well, government is involved in a way that is devastating when you come to the devastation of constitutional principles, you give the FBI the ability to reach into people's private lives without a court order.

I'm telling you, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, this is a very dangerous thing that we're doing here.

Stand up for the Constitution.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 2011]

Twitter Shines a Spotlight on Secret F.B.I. Subpoenas

(By Noam Cohen)

The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the

microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of

people connected to the WikiLeaks easel including its

founder, Julian Assange, isn't noteworthy because the

government's request was unusual or intrusive. It is

noteworthy because it became public.

Even as Web sites, social networking services and telephone

companies amass more and more information about their users,

the government--in the course of conducting inquiries--has

been able to looke through much of the information without

the knowledge of the people being investigated.

For the Twitter request, the government obtained a secret

subpoena from a federal court. Twitter challenged the

secrecy, not the subpoena itself, and won the right to inform

the people whose records the government was seeking.

WikiLeaks says it suspects that other large sites like Google

and Facebook have received similar requests and simply went

along with the government.

This kind of order is far more common than one may think,

and in the case of terrorism and espionage investigations the

government can issue them without a court order. The

government says more than 50,000 of these requests, known as

national security letters, are sent each year, but they come

with gag orders that prevent those contacted from revealing

what the agency has been seeking or even the existence of the

gag orders.

``It's a perfect example of how the government can use its

broad powers to silence people,'' said Nicholas Merrill, who

was the first person to file a constitutional challenge

against the use of national security letters, authorized by

the USA Patriot Act. Until August, he was forbidden to

acknowledge the existence of a 2004 letter that the company

he founded, the Calyx Internet Access Corporation, received

from the F.B.I.

Mr. Merrill is now free to speak about the request, but

part of the gag order remains in place, and he is still

barred from discussing what information he had been asked to

provide. As a result, he said, before he gives a talk he

consults a six-page guide prepared by his lawyers at the

American Civil Liberties Union to be sure that he complies

with the order to avoid risking a punishment of five years in

prison.

The government cites national security as the reason the

contents of the letters--even their existence--are kept

secret. The F.B.I. is trying to prevent plots as they are

being hatched, according to Valerie Caproni, the general

counsel of the agency, and thus needs stealth.

In the case of a small Internet service provider like

Calyx, which was located in downtown Manhattan and had

hundreds of customers, even mentioning that the F.B.I. had

been sniffing around could harm an investigation, she said,

especially if ``the target is antsy anyway.''

Mr. Merrill, a 38-year-old from Brooklyn who studied

computer science and philosophy, said he created Calyx in

1994 when it was ``really pretty easy, there wasn't really

any competition.'' His clients included ``dozens of nonprofit

organizations and alternative media outlets.''

Mr. Merrill challenged the constitutionality of the letter

he received in 2004, saying the request raised ``red flags''

of being politically motivated. As a result of his suit and

two later ones, the law governing the letters has been

overturned and then revised by Congress.

In 2007, the F.B.I.'s inspector general found that the

agency had abused its own guidelines by including too many

peripheral people in its searches. The letters now receive

the ``individualized scrutiny'' of the agents who are filing

them, Ms. Caproni said.

All sides agree that it has become significantly easier to

challenge the letters' requests as well as their secrecy. At

the moment, there are no new challenges in the court system,

the government and the A.C.L.U. say.

The program, whose use has ``ticked up'' a bit in recent

years, Ms. Caproni said, is humming along. She added,

however, that the government had become more selective about

the types of companies to which it sent letters. ``All other

things being the same, one of the things investigators think

about is, `Who are we serving this? Are they comfortable with

this?' '' she said. ``Most of these N.S.L.'s are filed on

large companies. Why would they want to disclose that? Most

companies view it as good corporate citizenry.''

One critic of the law, former Senator Russ Feingold, said

in a statement that it was long past time for Congress ``to

rein in the use of national security letters.''

``This is not a partisan issue,'' Mr. Feingold said, ``it

is about the legislative branch providing an adequate check

on the executive branch. Republicans advocating limited

government should take a close look at these statutes and

consider supporting changes.''

Mr. Merrill argues that the blanket gag orders have

prevented a full public debate on the subject. He himself

largely left the I.S.P. business in 2004, independent of his

legal case, and only now has returned to hosting a couple of

clients as part of a nonprofit project, the Calyx Institute,

which aims to study how to protect consumers' privacy.

Regarding the news about Twitter, he wrote in an e-mail:

``I commend Twitter's policy of notifying their customers of

government requests for their private data and for their

challenging and subsequently removing the gag order. This is

a great example of the government's misuse of secrecy

provisions and of exemplary privacy ethics on behalf of

Twitter.''

Ms. Caproni, who has testified before Congress about the

program, said that it had been more than amply debated.

``People at the A.C.L.U. and the press'' think the letters

are ``a bigger deal than the companies.''

To one of Mr. Merrill's A.C.L.U. lawyers, Jameel Jaffer,

the smooth operation of the system is a sign that it is not

working. The privacy rights at stake are not those of the

companies who hold the information, Mr. Jaffer said, but

``about people whose records are held.'' And those people

should be told, he said.

``People used to be the custodians of their own records,

their own diaries. Now third parties are custodians of all

that,'' he said. ``Everything you do online is entrusted to

someone else--unless you want to go completely off the grid,

and I'm not even sure that is possible.''

The gentleman makes a point; and that is, if you are under a gag order, how are we supposed to know if there are any abuses? Hello.

What Mr. Gohmert said a moment ago, I want to associate myself with much of his remarks. And I have here, to submit for the Record, correspondence that I submitted on November 3, 2009, asking for review of the provisions of the Patriot Act that actually we are looking at today.

We create government to secure our rights, not to give them away. The Patriot Act represents giving away rights, not securing them. It's said, well, it hasn't been adjudicated.

The laws that we make derive from our constitutional authority, and that's not just a matter of political will but it's about moral reasoning. And when we look at section 215, which lets the government obtain orders for private records or items from people who are not connected to any investigation----

When we look at section 206, which allows the FBI to obtain an order from FISA to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or device; when we look at section 6001, which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, effectively allows the government to circumvent standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts; when we look at these things, these provisions are divorced from our constitutional experience. They are divorced from what we know are commonsense provisions of what our rights ought to be. That's why I'm opposed to the extension of the Patriot Act and why, if we had any sense, we would repeal the whole thing.

November 3, 2009.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Conyers: I applaud you for your leadership on

reconsideration of various provisions of the Patriot

Amendments Act and FISA Amendments Act of 2009. These bills

provide a number of significant reforms that are important

steps toward restoring Congressional oversight of government

surveillance and civil liberties protections. I urge you to

protect the Constitutional rights and the civil liberties of

all Americans by ensuring that the legislation includes the

following essential reforms:

Enact stringent requirements for obtaining ``Roving

Wiretaps'': Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act, known as the

``John Doe wiretap'' currently allows the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) to obtain an order from the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to wiretap a target

without having to specify the target or the device. Any

reauthorization must include reforms that require the FBI to

identify the device(s) to be wiretapped and to provide

evidence that the person they are targeting is ``an agent of

a foreign power'' and is using the device prior to

wiretapping the device(s).

``Lone Wolf'' surveillance provision must not be

reauthorized: Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorizes the government to

conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected

to a foreign power or terrorist group. The government has

never had to use this provision. The likelihood of someone

acting alone while engaging in international terrorism is

highly unlikely. This provision must not be reauthorized.

Repeal blanket authorities in Section 215 of the PATRIOT

Act: Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, known as the

``Business Records'' provision, allows the FBI to order any

entity (person or business) to turn over ``any tangible

things'' as long as it specifies it is for ``an authorized

investigation.'' Section 215 orders constitute a serious

violation of Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights`` by

allowing the government to demand access to records often

associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights such

as library records and medical records. Authorization that

allows the FBI to demand information from or about innocent

Americans who are not a target of an investigation or who are

not ``agents of a foreign power'' must be repealed.

Reform National Security Letter (NSL) Issuance: The Justice

Department's Inspector General has found that upwards of

50,000 NSLs are issued every year, many against innocent

people two and three times removed from a terror suspect. The

Department of Justice Inspector General report in 2008 on the

FBI's use of NSLs stated that 57 percent of all NSLs were

issued to gather information on Americans. Judicial review

must be reinstated and any legislation that includes this

powerful tool that can collect communication, financial and

credit information must only be used against suspected

terrorists.

Reform NSL Gag Orders: NSLs come with a draconian gag order

that is almost impossible to fight in court because they

simply are not allowed to communicate about it. If the

government certifies to a judge that national security would

be harmed without a gag on the recipient of an NSL, the court

must find that certification conclusive. This bill must force

the government to justify a gag order to a judge and permit

that judge to engage in long standing First amendment

analysis before ruling.

Reform Material Support Statute: The government has used

the material support statute of the USA PATRIOT Act to

criminalize humanitarian aid by penalizing individuals or

groups that provide aid to communities in conflict zones.

Inside these zones, groups that are often included on the

Treasury's Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list control

schools, refugee camps and hospitals. The statute as

currently written does not require the government to prove

the individual or group accused of supporting an FTO had any

specific intention of directing aid to the FTO. This statute

must be reformed by requiring the government to provide

``specific and articulable'' facts that make the case that

there was a specific intention to direct aid to an FTO.

Repeal de-facto immunity to telecomm companies for illegal

spying: The FISA Amendments Act of 2009 repeals de-facto

immunity afforded to telecommunication companies that spy on

Americans as allowed by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The

government and telecommunication companies must be held

accountable for violating privacy and First Amendment rights

of Americans. This year's reauthorization must ensure that

immunity for telecommunication companies is repealed.

Enact a ban on ``bulk collection'' under FISA: The FISA

Amendments Act of 2008 allowed the dragnet collection of all

international phone calls and emails of U.S. residents

without warrants or even suspicion. We must ensure that the

surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad does not infringe

the civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

Any language regarding surveillance of international phone

calls and emails of U.S. residents must ensure that the

government is required to provide evidence that the targeted

communication pertains to a foreign power.

Thank you for consideration of these legislative

benchmarks. I and my staff stand ready to work with you in

your efforts to restore Constitutional protections and civil

liberties to the American people.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Act is a bill that has been plagued with abuse since it was first passed, and today's rule is yet another example of short-circuiting the system that our Founding Fathers set up. If there were ever the need for the close supervision and congressional oversight of a law, it is a law that discusses how and under what conditions a government can spy on its own citizens. After 10 years of public record, we all agree there are some clear sections of the law that can be improved; but instead of debating these sections of the law to better find that balance between protecting what makes it special to be Americans and protecting our national security, the Republican leadership has decided to ram through this bill with as little debate as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we spent an hour earlier discussing how we will spend 9\1/2\ hours discussing the organizational aspects of the House committee structure. Yet, for something that cuts to our core identity as Americans, we only have an hour under the rule and an hour under the bill to discuss it in its entirety.

This bill would reauthorize three of the most troubling provisions in the Patriot Act. Again, instead of actually debating the merits of these provisions and coming up with solutions that both sides can agree on to protect what it means to be an American, the Republican leadership has attempted first to force it through under the suspension calendar and now under a closed rule, the most restrictive kind of rule.

In spite of their plethora of promises to change the culture of Congress, this bill looks like it's being done under old business. On such an important issue, one that affects our national security and the civil liberties of every American, one that goes right to the heart of what it means to be an American and to our identity as citizens of this great Republic, the Republican majority has reverted to short- circuiting the system and closing down discussion.

Just yesterday, they held the vote open for more than half an hour, pressuring Members to switch votes. Thankfully, the effort failed to muster the majority, and that's why we are here before you today with an additional hour to discuss the Patriot Act, which is woefully insufficient; but I think the American people can be grateful that Members on both sides of the aisle stood up and said at least let's have more discussion about this. Only after failing to jam through the bill as a suspension bill did the Republican leadership bring it up under a rule.

The Judiciary Committee, which the Republicans argue has not had time to look at this or to consider this under the normal process, has actually already had several hearings in the past few weeks on other topics. Apparently, the topic of abortion was important enough on which to have a discussion by the Judiciary Committee but not the topic of the security of the American people and our civil rights as Americans.

So why can't the Judiciary Committee find the time to even hold a hearing to discuss an issue this important that cuts the very definition of what it means to be American? Even if a little more time is needed, a month, 2 months, why isn't there a 30-day extension, a 60- day extension before us instead of a 10-month extension? It should not be used as an excuse to prevent all proceedings from moving forward.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I think there would be broader agreement perhaps if there was a 60-day extension and then perhaps a need for another 60-day extension if there was no legislative business completed, but putting it off 10 months or a year can actually give an excuse not to bring to the forefront these very important issues that need to be dealt with.

This body can produce results. The single most significant bill was H.R. 2, the repeal of an entire body of health care law, and somehow there was the ability to bring that to the floor within days of the opening of the new Congress.

You know, both parties want to ensure that the government has the tools

we need to fight terrorism. We can all agree that the Patriot Act has issues that need to be resolved. If we can move this bill through the regular order, I'm confident that the Judiciary Committee can make improvements that they've already discussed in prior session. In fact, just last year, the Judiciary Committee reported out by voice vote reform measures that would improve the Patriot Act and add real oversight.

It's clear that there is bipartisan support to improve this bill. Even as we speak, the Senate is debating three different versions of the reauthorization bill, and yet here in the House, we have only this one, originally scheduled with hardly any debate and now with a very closed structure and no ability for Members of either party to offer amendments.

Apart from its procedural flaws, the reauthorization fails to provide the administration the tools and support it truly needs. The administration, which does support reauthorizing the Patriot Act, has repeatedly asked for a real reauthorization rather than the short-term extensions that increase the uncertainty surrounding long-term planning, intelligence, and law enforcement as they carry out this mission. Instead of a patch that will get us through another few months at the expense of the civil liberties of the American people, we need the opportunity to truly work together to fix this bill.

Specifically, this bill would reauthorize three provisions: section 215, 206, and 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that might be relevant to terrorist investigations. This includes your medical records, your diary, even what books you've checked out of the library and what Web sites you visited. In the past, these orders were limited to narrow classes of business and records, but the specific facts pertain to any agent of a foreign power, and the Patriot Act has swept away these basic requirements. In fact, it was reported by a bookstore that the information regarding everybody who purchased biographical books about Osama bin Laden had been requested.

The justification used for this provision is that the government needs to have the ability to protect our national security, and yet this goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. We ought to seriously consider making changes to this section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to spy on its citizens.

Let me just give a few examples--and I think this will come as some surprise to many people--of the transgressions that have already occurred, the affronts to our civil liberties and freedoms as Americans that have already occurred under the Patriot Act.

Perhaps some of us have taken Christmas vacations to Las Vegas. Well, there is a list of 300,000 people that visited Las Vegas in Christmas of 2003 that according to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal said the casino operators said they turned over the names and other guest information on an estimated 270,000 visitors. Now, I think a lot of people don't expect that to happen when they visit Las Vegas.

There needs to be an oversight process in place to ensure that, when extreme measures are necessary that interfere with our privacy, it goes through the right channels. This particular incident, even the FBI conceded that the personal records had not borne out a particular threat.

The Patriot Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search individuals' homes, and 90 percent of those cases have had nothing to do with terrorism.

The Patriot Act was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, innocent of any crime, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

It's been used to coerce an Internet service provider to divulge information about Web surfing and Internet activity and then gagged that provider, preventing them from even saying that their information had been compromised.

It's been used to charge, obtain, and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to materials that were found objectionable by some, even though those same links were available on a U.S. Government Web site.

Mr. Speaker, part of what makes America special is the balance between our civil liberties and our rights as Americans and our national security. When so many Members of Congress, so many Americans on both sides of the aisle, of all ideologies, feel that we can do better, I think we owe it to the people of this country to do better and have a better process as a Congress, to improve the Patriot Act to help protect our liberties and keep us safe over the long term.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned that he is not aware of abuses under section 215. I would remind my colleagues that most of the uses are classified under 215, and there has not yet been a briefing for Members this Congress for us to make our assessment of whether there have been abuses of section 215. I have not had a briefing nor has there been one offered here to the Members of the 112th Congress. And I think before we make a decision about section 215, we need to know how it has been used. That's a very simple request.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

I yield the gentlewoman another 15 seconds.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

At this point in the 112th Congress, the Judiciary Committee has found time to hold several hearings. I have been informed that they have held hearings on topics that are certainly important--immigration, relating to health care and malpractice--and yet this topic that is being discussed today, something that is so fundamental to our identity as Americans, has not benefited from a single hearing in the 112th Congress.

And one cannot say, oh, it's because they haven't had hearings or they're just reconstituting themselves. I have been informed that they have actually had several hearings to date; they have just simply been on other topics. Apparently, this hearing isn't important enough to warrant a hearing in the early part of the 112th Congress.

One of the difficulties in exercising oversight with regard to section 215 is that the orders are prohibited from being disclosed that they got an order to anyone but their attorneys. So we have very little ability, absent a classified briefing, which we have not been offered, to even find out if section 215 has been abused or not.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I want to again bring your attention to section 215 and the difficulty which we in this body and the American people as a whole have with regard to exercising oversight over abuse of government authority.

An example that I gave earlier, the American Library Association confirmed that the Federal Government went into a library and asked for the list of everybody who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden. Now, recipients of 215 orders can't even disclose that they received such an order to anybody but their attorneys. So what ability do we have as the People's House to exercise oversight about whether there are abuses?

It has been brought out by several people on the other side, my colleague from Wisconsin, oh, there aren't abuses. Well, if there is a secretive process that prevents us from knowing about abuses, how are we to know in fact whether there are abuses?

I also want to discuss section 206 that we are discussing the renewal of here today, the provision of the bill that allows the government to conduct the roving wiretaps. This allows the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't even specify the person or the object that is being tapped. It could involve tapping an entire neighborhood of telephones that a suspect might use--an unnamed suspect--might use or might not use. There is nothing even to specifically prohibit it from being an entire city of telephone calls being tapped. And we don't know how it has been used. The Fourth Amendment clearly states that warrants need to specify the person and places to be seized and searched with particularity.

Mr. Speaker, we began this session of Congress by reading the United States Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, here in the House of Representatives. We did that to help make sure that the executive branch or the legislative branch don't have unfettered power to decide singlehandedly who and how to search private citizens and seize their properties.

The Founding Fathers were rightfully worried about the possibility of the central government issuing general warrants that would give it far- reaching power to spy on its citizens and intervene in their private lives. We should honor the Founding Fathers' clear wishes expressed in our Constitution instead of authorizing our Federal Government this kind of power.

Now, the justification used for this provision is that the government needs to have the ability to spy on a suspect as they move from phone to phone. No, no one objects to that authority when the security of the American people is at stake. But that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't have to specify who they are going to spy on and under what conditions. In fact, under Federal criminal law, the government is already required to state either the person or the place that is subject to the wiretap.

It is these sorts of commonsense revisions that I think we could achieve bipartisan consensus on to provide a longer-term stability with regard to the necessary provisions of the Patriot Act.

The final section that will be reauthorized in the bill, section 6001, deals with the ``lone wolf'' provisions which were alluded to by the last two speakers which allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. even if they are not connected to any terrorist group or foreign power.

Now, this authority is only granted in secret courts and again threatens our understanding of the limits of our Federal Government's investigatory powers within the borders of our own country. It blurs the line between domestic national security and foreign intelligence. It is clear that we allow a process to improve this.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say they are worried about the growth of government, yet in spite of all the rhetoric about how the government is trying to take over your lives, this, their fifth bill under a rule, actually gives the government the ability to spy on innocent Americans. No wonder so many Republicans joined so many Democrats in voting against this bill earlier this week.

I urge all of my colleagues who are worried about the unchecked growth of the state, anyone who seriously believes in protecting the rights and liberties of Americans, or anyone who simply thinks that we need to take some time to seriously look at these issues to debate them, to vote ``no'' on this bill, to force a discussion of these issues, rather than vague promises of future hearings or markups to improve this bill. Let's accelerate that timeline, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the concerns of the American people to help protect what it means to be an American, what is so close to our identity as Americans, protecting our individual liberties according to the Founding Fathers as articulated in our Constitution, we can reconcile that with the need to protect the American people's safety, and let us begin that work.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 79 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Boulder (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, 18 days from now, three key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire, leaving a gap in our national security framework. Today's underlying legislation would temporarily-- and I underscore the word, Mr. Speaker--temporarily extend these provisions to allow for the development of a long-term solution, with the many questions that are out there.

With strong bipartisan support, the previous Congress simply passed a blanket 1-year extension without addressing any of the underlying challenges, questions and controversies. I am the first to admit that there are challenges, questions and controversies that relate to the Patriot Act. Unfortunately--and again, it was by a vote of 315-97 on February 25 of last year, Mr. Speaker--we went through that entire year. But guess what. Not a single hearing was conducted subsequent to the passage of that extension. Not a single hearing over the past year has been held.

I feel very confident that my colleagues who have joined me on the floor here from the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Lungren, who is here right now, Mr. Sensenbrenner, who chairs the Crime Subcommittee, and Mr. Gohmert--I mean, these gentlemen and I have just had a conversation, Mr. Speaker, in which they have made an absolute commitment that this Congress will not make the mistake that was made over the past year. Following this short-term extension, we will have a thorough oversight process in which the committees of jurisdiction will take a very close look at how we pursue the terrorists who threaten our homeland.

Now, everybody acknowledges that this is not only controversial, not only filled with questions and not only filled with challenges, but that it is very, very complicated. The individuals and networks who seek to do harm to Americans change and adapt every single day. Mr. Lungren and I were just having a conversation in which we were looking at the situation that existed a decade ago, right after September 11. The threat is much different today than it was 10 years ago, and that's why we need to recognize that they are constantly changing and adapting their tactics to try and undo the United States of America and the free world. Staying one step ahead requires a tremendous amount of flexibility, ingenuity, coordination, and of course the right law enforcement tools.

Just today, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that the threat that exists today--and Mr. Gohmert just showed it to me on his iPad; it's on the front of one of the

newspapers around here--is as great as it has been since September 11. Then when I said it to Mr. Lungren, he reminded me that it's a different threat, a different threat today than the one that we faced in the past. That's why flexibility, ingenuity, and coordination are absolutely essential if we are going to proceed.

We need to ensure that we are taking all necessary steps while fully protecting the rights of all Americans. I want to underscore that this is one of the reasons that, going back 10 years, as we were legislating through the prism of September 11, I was very insistent that we have the ability to have oversight and to look and make sure that we are not undermining the rights of the American people. We need to ensure that that is a priority as we proceed.

This process is going to be a lengthy process over the next 10 months. It is not a process that can be resolved in the 7 legislative days that exist between now and February 28 when this is scheduled to expire. In the immediate term, it is imperative that we temporarily extend the expiring provisions to ensure that we do not suddenly create glaring loopholes in our national security. It is imperative that we commit to a comprehensive and, yes, transparent process. I had a conversation downstairs with my California colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher. All the way to when this measure comes to the floor, we want to ensure that we have an open and transparent process when it comes to changes/ modifications to the Patriot Act, and we want amendments to be considered. We want there to be a free-flowing debate as we proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the last piece of legislation, the resolution that we were just discussing, has to do with job creation and economic growth because we want to unleash the potential of American workers by freeing them from the onerous regulations that have been imposed on them. Some might ask, Is this in fact a jobs bill? Well, I think about what happened to our Nation's economy following September 11 of 2001. We all know the devastation that took place. The New York Stock Exchange had to close down for a week. We saw tremendous disruptions in our economy and the job force.

This measure is designed to ensure our national security. Without national security, we won't have the potential to save and create jobs in this country. So as we are enjoying economic recovery today, I see this measure as being critical to our quest for sustained job creation and economic growth, and believe that they are so inextricably tied that it is essential that we put this extension in place so that, over the next 10 months, nothing will be done to undermine the security and the safety of our fellow Americans.

The five most important words in the middle of the Preamble of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, are ``provide for the common defense.''

That is what priority number one is.

Mr. Lungren and I were talking about this yesterday morning at the Republican Conference. It is absolutely essential that we recognize that as our number one priority because providing for the common defense and ensuring our security ensures that our economic security with the potential for job creation will be able to be sustained.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way--since we had a vote of 315-97 on February 25 of last year and with, again, strong bipartisan support from many, many, many Democrats who, unfortunately, chose to vote ``no'' when we had this under suspension of the rules, now we are considering it under a process. This is bipartisan, by the way. When a measure is not successful under suspension of the rules, Democrats and Republicans alike bring measures to the floor under this process that we are considering this measure today.

So I urge my colleagues to support this so that we can proceed with the very important work that Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Lungren, Gohmert, and others will be pursuing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I will explain why it is that we have more than a 30-day extension. As I said, with the controversies, the challenge and the absolute humongous task that is faced, we know that the legislative process takes a while, and to have that 10 months' extension is essential for them to do their work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I agree with much of what my friend from Boulder has said.

I will say this. It was February 25 of last year that a 1-year extension was provided and not a single hearing held. It is very important that we deal with these questions that my friend has raised, and we have them as well. They need to be addressed.

The administration has come out in strong support of this extension. They'd like to have the extension not a 30- or 60-day; they'd like this extension to go to December of 2013 if they had their way. That's what the Statement of Administration Policy says.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that I believe that we are very much on the right track to ensure that we get those issues addressed.

I now yield 4 minutes to my friend from Menomonee Falls (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the author of this extension and the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, who will be explaining in great detail the challenges that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend from Georgia that no one is trying to ram anything through at this point. President Obama strongly supports this extension, I would say to my friend. He, in fact, wants it to go to December of 2013. We had a 1-year extension that was put into place, passed here by a vote of 315-97 on February 25, 2010.

There was a commitment then, and certainly people inferred, that we would have hearings. There was not a single hearing held during that entire period of time, and we've made an absolute commitment. We've just heard from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). We are about to hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, that we are going to, in fact, have the process that my friend desires.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have the benefit of having my friend from Gold River, my friend from Menomonee Falls here on the floor, and I would like to ask each of them, if I might, if they would underscore the commitment that was raised by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I would like to inquire of both my friends what kind of commitment they are prepared to make in dealing with this, in light of the fact that we have gone for an entire year following the 315-97 vote passage of this measure without a single hearing being held.

First, I yield to my friend from Menomonee Falls, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee.

Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that I think it's very important to note that, as those hearings proceed, issues that relate to civil liberties will clearly be part of the hearing process and part of the debate.

Am I correct in concluding that?

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 45 seconds.

And I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Gold River to respond to the question I propounded earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would just like to say in response to my friend on the roving wiretap issue, it is fascinating. As I began my opening remarks, I was talking about the fact that Mr. Gohmert showed me his iPad, which had the headline on that iPad that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has indicated that the threat that exists today is greater than it has been at any time since September 11, 2001. That technology didn't exist back in 2001 or certainly back in 1980. The roving wiretap is designed to focus on the potential terrorist and not on some antiquated technology that we have.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. And I would just say, first of all, I appreciate the bipartisan support for the effort led by our friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, which I think is terrific.

The question that I would propound to my friend is, if we look at the February 25 passage of this measure by a vote of 315-97 and the 1-year period of time, I know that the gentlewoman, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, certainly would have wanted to have hearings or support the notion of hearings. I wonder why there weren't hearings held during that 1-year period of time.

I am talking about February 25 of last year. Last year was when this was passed, a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The point is, February 25 of 2010 there was an entire session of Congress. It was when the Democrats were in the majority. During that period of time, through the entire 1-year extension, there was not a single hearing held; and I know that my friend, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee, would have been a strong proponent of holding those hearings. And that's why it just surprises me that, assuming that she did insist on them, that she was unsuccessful, Mr. Speaker, in the quest to get those hearings.

And I should add that the organization for the 112th Congress is just under way today, in fact, due to the fact that the minority has refused to allow the organization to take place. So there has been a year period of time. And I wish very much, Mr. Speaker, that there had, in fact, been hearings over the last year.

I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the vice chairman of Mr. Sensenbrenner's Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee, our friend from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new Member of this body, my friend from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the only way for us to guarantee the rights of every American and to ensure that we will be going down the road to be a safe nation is to pass this extension so that these very able gentleman can proceed with the kinds of hearings that are necessary so that we assure that all the rights we need are protected and that we are a safe and secure country.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 73, the rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 72, which directs certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The resolution isn't objectionable in and of itself. We all agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. The President has said that, Democrats have said that, and Republicans have said that. And the rules of the House already require committees to carry out this sort of oversight. So I question, Mr. Speaker, why my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on spending 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution that is entirely redundant. We're committing the same offense that Republicans claimed to abhor about government: wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars.

Devoting 9\1/2\ hours to this exercise is squandering yet another opportunity. We could be using this time to pass legislation that will create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already mandated to do. What's next, Mr. Speaker? Nine-and-a-half hours of debate instructing the House to close for Thanksgiving or Christmas?

Republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a laser-like focus on job creation, and they've done nothing towards that end since. Today's debate is yet another reminder that Republicans care more about their lockstep, anti-government ideology than they do about getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking Americans.

Democrats did offer to improve today's rule by adding language instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their highest priority and for such legislation to be considered under an open amendment process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Democrats made the effort to work in agreement with Republicans on this matter and to ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve the American economy, but the Republicans said ``no.'' They said ``no'' to working with Democrats. They said ``no'' to prioritizing job creation. They said ``no'' to fulfilling their promise for an open and transparent legislative process.

My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) declared at the end of last year that, and I quote him, ``Open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor,'' unquote, and that all Members, and I quote him again, ``will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative process.''

The House has been under Republican control for 5 weeks. In that time, we have voted on 11 bills. None of those bills went through their respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules. One had a modified open rule. That's not very triumphant in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

It is already the second month of this Congress and Republicans are still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real jobs and improve the American economy. And Republicans are still refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of the American people. Which regulations do Republicans propose to get rid of? The ones for clean drinking water? The ones preventing financial abuse on Wall Street? I was here, Mr. Speaker, along with my friend on the other side of the aisle when Republicans assumed control and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the Securities and Exchange Commission. I for one thought when a friend of ours who served with us went to be the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission that finally we would get some regulations there. We did not get regulations. What we got--and there's no secret about this, no finger to point at anybody--the simple fact of the matter is by not having adequate regulation of Wall Street, this country came to the brink of disaster in November of '08. Do they want to get rid of the ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine collapses?

So far this year, Republicans have moved to repeal health care, they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose, and they've moved drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national security. It seems the Republicans want to use their majority to settle old scores. But I don't think that's what the American people have in mind as a national priority.

Republicans seem to think that if we spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution

that simply remarks on what House committees are already doing, they will suffice to convince the American people that Republicans have a plan for improving the economy.

It is clear that this resolution is really about demonizing Federal regulations. But the Republicans ignore the benefits of regulations, the importance of protecting existing jobs, and the necessity of leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for all Americans. If our constituents had the choice of whether to spend this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, I believe they would vote for jobs. Let's get back to what the American people need from us, and that is to improve the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides the remaining amount of time?

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rules to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

To explain that further and to explicate as she so desires, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend, Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee, the chairman and two other Members cited repeatedly the January 18 article offered by President Obama that appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Interestingly, they leave out one section of what the President did, in fact, say. They do say, and I agree that he said in the article, ``Sometimes those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' That is where they stop. But the President in that article goes on: ``At other times, we fail to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences.''

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, earlier I began by saying what a lack of regulation caused at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The President, in The Wall Street Journal article, says, ``Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis, from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression.''

Now, that began before Barack Obama was President of the United States. Most of us, especially those of us on the floor that are senior Members, were here in November when Secretary Paulson came here and cited with 3\1/2\ pages in his hands that the whole financial system of this country was about to collapse; and I, along with countless others, thought that that was the case, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, to do what we could to shore it up.

``Over the past 2 years,'' the President said, ``the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance, and today I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.''

Then what else do we need? Here is what we did one month ago, just one month ago. We approved the rules under which committees must, and I repeat, one, lay out a written plan for overseeing Federal regulations; and, two, conduct oversight through hearings and investigations and provide the American people a written report on the results of that oversight twice a year.

The rules even specifically tell committees to review, and I am quoting from the rules that we passed for the House of Representatives for the 112th Congress, they tell the committees ``to review specific problems with Federal Rules, regulations, statutes and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary or nonsensical, or that impose severe financial burdens on individuals.''

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, then, that we would come here today and say that we are doing something constructive and substantive for the membership. My friend Mr. Sessions said earlier that we're going to give every Member of the House of Representatives who so chooses during that 9\1/2\ hours an opportunity to speak out on the regulations and to have what they would offer to the committees for regulation oversight. But what he fails to say is that we're proceeding under a closed rule.

Now, it isn't that the American public always understands this Washington inside-baseball closed rule, open rule, modified rule. He was going to fix it, he says, by offering the Democrats a motion to recommit, as if that would then provide all the substantive input that Members could have. One of the reasons we have a Rules Committee is so that Members of the House of Representatives can come to the Rules Committee to offer amendments to proposals. The proposal that we are here on today is regulatory reform. Not one amendment was permitted nor will be permitted under this rule. We can come down here and talk all we want, but it won't change anything substantively about this rule. As I have indicated, Democrats are not opposed to conducting proper oversight. If there are superfluous or excessive regulations clearly of no benefit to the American people, then we ought to take a hard look at how best to eliminate them.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Sessions, as a matter of comity, it was pointed out to me by the chairman that I could have asked him. I was of the opinion that the Speaker would give the direction you did, and therefore I apologize to Mr. Sessions for that.

But Democrats now stand for the wholesale undertaking of what is necessary to provide essential public safety measures and crucial economic benefits. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent polluters from dumping toxic waste into drinking water resources. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent Wall Street greed from forcing people out of their homes. And Democrats will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules which ensure that Americans can purchase food at the grocery store without worrying about getting life-threatening illnesses.

While we won't object to Republicans wanting to debate the efficiency of Federal regulations, we do object to spending 9\1/2\ hours debating what everyone has already agreed to. House committees are already required to conduct oversight. They already examine Federal regulations. And they already promulgate legislation making changes to Federal law. Wasting this body's time debating this matter only serves to underscore that Republicans still have no plan for improving the economy and no interest, it does appear, in prioritizing legislation that will create jobs and best serve the American people.

In the 9\1/2\ hours this body will debate today and tomorrow this entirely unnecessary, inconsequential resolution, not a single regulation will be improved, not a single law will be changed, and not a single job will be created. The American people watching know that this is simply a waste of time. They know it is nothing but empty rhetoric. And they know that a 9\1/2\-hour ideological rant is no replacement for the job-creating measures our Nation so desperately needs.

If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.