H.Res. 727

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rangel for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4, the so-called Jobs for America Act.

Six years ago this week marked the collapse of Lehman Brothers. That bankruptcy on Wall Street quickly spread across our country, bringing small business lending to a halt, causing a devastating number of foreclosures, and pushing far too many of our fellow Americans into personal bankruptcy.

In the wake of this devastation, Democrats in Congress worked diligently to put in place serious and comprehensive safeguards to prevent another collapse. And, today, my Republican colleagues continue their hard work to thwart that effort and roll back meaningful reform.

Indeed, this bill, H.R. 4, places significant additional administrative hurdles on our Federal regulatory agencies, particularly on our independent financial regulators, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Certain provisions of this bill would impose requirements on our financial regulators to conduct onerous cost-benefit analysis, to submit their rules for review to the Office of Management and Budget, and to delay effectiveness of major rules until Congress enacts an unprecedented joint resolution.

Not only would these provisions limit the independence of our Wall Street sheriffs, it would also tie up their already insufficient resources and put them at even greater risk of litigation for every rule. In fact, this bill would create a constitutional crisis by allowing the ``do-nothing'' Republican Congress to intervene in the actions of our executive branch, which is diligently trying to implement critical portions of the Wall Street Reform Act.

The effect of this legislative effort would be to grind to a halt all meaningful regulation on everything from payday loans to mortgage services to the types of risky trading that caused the 2008 crisis. And, ironically, it would stop JOBS Act implementation dead in its tracks. Worst, this comes at a time when House Republicans want to hold funding for our financial regulators flat, despite their new responsibilities, the increase in the number of entities they oversee, and the growth in the complexity and size of U.S. financial markets.

With our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial crisis, we simply cannot, under the guise of so-called ``job creation,'' afford to destroy crucial reforms and hamstring our financial regulators.

I enter the following letter of opposition from Public Citizen into the Record.

Public Citizen,

Washington, DC

A Vote for the ``Jobs for America Act'' Is a Vote Against Public Health

and Safety

Republicans will have you believe that a vote for H.R. 4,

the ``Jobs for America Act,'' is not a vote against clean air

and water, against food safety, against safe consumer

products, against safe workplaces, and against a stable

financial system less prone to excessive risk-taking. But

that is false. The Impact of the ``Jobs for America'' Act is

clear and simple: it will lead to more polluted air and

water, more dangerous workplaces, more tainted and

contaminated food, more dangerous workplaces, and a

deregulated Wall Street allowed to gamble our economy into

the next financial crash. By taking regulators ``off the

beat'' and preventing them from updating and modernizing

basic health and safety protections, the public is once again

dependent on Big Business to ``self-regulate.'' Our public

has seen the disastrous impact of letting industry regulate

itself whether it's the BP Gulf Oil Spill, the West Virginia

Chemical Spill, The Upper Big Branch Mine explosion, oil

train derailment explosions, or the Wall Street financial

meltdown. The solution is not to make our public even more

vulnerable to deregulatory disasters that put Americans in

harm's way and damage our economy as the ``Jobs for America

Act'' would do.

The enormous costs of deregulation

a. West Virginia Chemical Spill: those who were hurt by the

damage caused by the spill are claiming 160 million in

damages from the spill. These include small businesses in

Charleston who were forced to shut down for days and the many

thousands of residents who were forced to buy bottled water

because of the severe water contamination. http:// www.insurancejournalcom/news/southeast/2014/08/12/337282.htm

b. Lake Erie Algae Bloom: a half million Ohio residents

were forced to buy bottled water because their water had

become so badly contaminated from algae. In 2008, the

government estimated algae blooms resulted in 82 million

dollars annually in economic damages: http:// www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/ econimpact 08.pdf the damage to Lake Erie can be directly

traced to successful attempts to roll back the Clean Water

Act by special interests. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ blogs/the-toledo-water-crisis-wont-be-the-last/ c. Oil Freight Train Explosions: Trains carrying highly

explosive crude oil are traveling through communities every

day without most of those communities even aware of the

threat. A massive oil train derailment and explosion in

Canada killed 47 people and will cost 2.7 billion in economic

damages over the next decade. http://bangordailynews.com/ 2014/04/17/news/state/after-end-of-the-world-explosion- Quebec-town-tries-to-find-hope/ d. Preventable Workplace Deaths and Injuries: Every day, an

average of 150 workers die from job injuries or occupational

diseases. Every year, the lack of effective workplace safety

protections costs our country 250 billion to 330 billion in

injuries and illnesses. http://www.aflcio.org/content/ download/126621/34645631/DOTJ2014.pdf

e. Climate Inaction: Blocking or delaying new carbon

emission rules from the EPA and other climate change measures

will cost our country up to 150 billion dollars annually in

economic damage in the future. http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/ white-house-in-action-on-climate-costs-150-billion-a-year/ f. BP Oil Spill: This massive environmental disaster in the

Gulf ended up costing more than 42 billion dollars. The oil

spill harmed thousands of Gulf Coast residents and destroyed

many local small businesses. BP has now been found ``grossly

negligent'' in causing the disaster and faces up to 18

billion in fines, some of which will go to Gulf Coast

restoration projects. http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/09/05/bp- oil-spill-ruling-could-jumpstart-gulf-coast-restoration-work

g. 2008 Wall Street Crash: The rampant deregulation that

led to the crash cost our economy anywhere from 6 trillion to

14 trillion dollars or 50,000 to 120,000 for every US

household. In addition, 8.7 million Americans lost their jobs

during or immediately following the crisis. http:// ourfinancialsecurity.org/blogs/wp-content/ ourfinancialsecurity.org/uploads/2012/09/Costs-of-The- Financial-Crisis-September-20142.pdf

The ``Jobs for America Act'' will not create a single job

The bill trades on the fallacy that deregulation leads to

job growth by freeing up capital to invest in labor. There is

simply no neutral, non-partisan empirical evidence to back

this up. In fact, journalists and academics who have

thoroughly studied this claim have concluded that regulations

have no overall effect on job growth. The claim that

regulations kill jobs is the very definition of a baseless

and fabricated talking point.

A thorough investigative report by the Washington Post

concluded that regulations

have no effect on jobs (highlights below): http:// www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-government- regulation-really-kill-jobs-economists-say-overall-effect- minimal/2011/10/19/gIQALRF5IN story.html.

Conservative thinker Richard Morganstern (Resources for the

Future): ``Based on the available literature, there's not

much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job

losses or major job gains.''

Mike Morris, CEO of AEP, one of America's largest coal-

based utilities even admitted EPA regulations will create

jobs: ``We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters,

folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant''

Morris said. ``Jobs are created in the process--no question

about that.''

A recent and exhaustive exploration of the ``job-killing

regulation'' claim by Academics from across the political

spectrum concluded that regulations have no net impact on

jobs: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15183.html

The editors of ``Does Regulation Kill Jobs?'' Cary

Coglianese and Christopher Corrigan conclude: ``the empirical

work suggests that regulation plays relatively little role in

affecting the aggregate number of jobs in the United

States.''

Big business ``job-killing'' claims are always wrong

Big Business groups have been making hyperbolic claims

about regulations killing jobs for decades and it never comes

true. Not only is this talking point patently false, but it

also never dies despite being proven wrong every time. The

following examples are from Public Citizen's recent report,

``It's an Outrage: Regulations are Entirely to Blame for

Unemployment and a Leading Cause of Death, According to

Industry and Allies'' http://www.citizen.org/documents/ regulations-are-to-blame-unemployment-death-report.pdf

1974: OSHA bans the carcinogenic vinyl chloride. The

plastics industry claimed that the OSHA regulation would kill

2.2 million jobs. Those claims were proven completely false

and a new way manufacture vinyl chloride was developed within

a year without any jobs lost.

1975: NHTSA increases fuel efficiency standard. Industry

reports warned of 1.5 million jobs lost. By 1985, auto makers

had met the higher standard without losing any jobs.

1990: EPA sets new pollution standards under the Clean Air

Act. In response the Business Roundtable (BRT) and National

Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) responded with

doomsday hysterics, claiming up to 2 million jobs would be

lost. Those were proven entirely wrong. Instead, according to

the Investor's Business Daily, ``Pollution has been falling

across the board for decades, even while the nation's

population and economy have expand

1995: EPA removes lead from gasoline. A Monsanto official

testified to Congress that the regulation would cost up to 43

million jobs. The removal of lead is now considered one of

the biggest public health success stories while gas prices

did not dramatically increase and no jobs were lost.

The new industry-funded study on regulations doesn't pass the laugh

test

The study just released by the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM) is not worth the paper it is printed on.

NAM turned to discredited economists whose last study was so

poorly done and inaccurate that it was roundly criticized by

observers in bipartisan fashion, including by the CRS,

Republican economists, and then OIRA Administrator Cass

Sunstein. The study brought so much negative attention that

the agency which commissioned it, the Small Business

Administration, had to formally and publicly disavow it.

Business Media Push Industry-Funded Study On Federal

Regulations Experts Call ``Bogus'': Reuters and CNBC

uncritically promoted a new report claiming that government

regulations cost the economy over $2 trillion each year,

ignoring any benefits of regulation. But the study uses the

same flawed methodology as an earlier report by the same

authors that was so widely panned that even the organization

that commissioned it distanced itself from it. http:// mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/11/business-media-push- industry-funded-study-on-fe/200732

NAM's ``Cost of Regulations'' Estimate: An Exercise in How

Not to Do Convincing Empirics: The bulk of these costs (75

percent) are estimated using a cross-country regression

analysis. This cross-country analysis, however, is completely

unconvincing and should be ignored. http://www.epi.org/ bloginams-cost-regulations-estimate-exercise/

The ``Jobs for America Act'' is a Broken Record

The ``Jobs for America Act'' is just a re-packaging of the

same old and tired legislation that the House has already

passed. Each of these bills, if enacted, will significantly

exacerbate the current problems in our regulatory system.

Collectively, these bills amount to a virtual shutdown of our

system of public protections by blocking federal agencies

from responding to public health and safety crises and

putting forth strong new safeguards to prevent the next one.

1. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act

(REINS, HR): This bill is a blatant power grab by the House

GOP. Requiring Congressional approval of regulations before

they take effect means, in practical terms, that the House

GOP can unilaterally veto any regulation it opposes. Even

Congressional inaction would kill a regulation. This is a

recipe for extending the same paralysis and dysfunction that

has plagued our lawmaking process to the regulatory process.

2. Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA, H.R. 2122): This

bill would re-write dozens of critical public health and

safety laws, including the Clean Air Act, to require agencies

to choose safety standards not based on whether they are the

most effective but on whether they are the least burdensome

to regulated special interests. This bill is a backdoor way

of gutting laws that the GOP knows are too politically

popular to overturn directly.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (RFIA, H.R.

2542): This bill is a small business bill in name only. It

does nothing to help small businesses directly. Instead, it

would delay or block rules that in many instances

disproportionately impact Big Business. For example, the bill

requires agencies to consider the ``indirect'' effects of

their rules on small businesses without ever defining what

constitutes an ``indirect'' effect. Ordering an agency to

discern all indirect economic impacts of any rule, however

small, is akin to ordering a meteorologist to discern the

effects on Washington, D.C. weather of a butterfly flapping

its wings in Japan. Even worse, agencies could be sued by

industry for not complying with this wholly undefined

mandate. Agencies will be forced to waste precious time and

resources looking for small business impacts where there

clearly are none. In the meantime, lives could be lost and

people could be needlessly injured.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, H.R. 899): Once

again, this legislation forces agencies to pick the least

costly rule to industry, rather than the rule that is most

effective at keeping the public safe. It also undermines the

independence of important agencies that are working to put

new Wall Street reforms and product safety standards in

place. Ironically, the new mandates in this bill do not come

with any additional funding for agencies, making them the

very definition of ``unfunded mandates.''

5. The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act

(H.R. 1493): This legislation targets citizen suits aimed at

spurring agencies to move forward with overdue and

congressionally mandated protections. Consent decrees and

settlement agreements have long been an effective tool to

provide citizens and the courts with a means of ensuring that

Congressional mandates are implemented, whether they are new

environmental safety standards or civil rights and

antidiscrimination measures. This bill would force them to

run a gauntlet of burdensome, time-consuming, and redundant

procedures--furthering slowing agency action. This bill would

weaken the power of citizens to ensure agencies follow the

law--and waste government resources in the process.

6. The All Economic Regulations are Transparent (``ALERT'')

Act (H.R. 2804): This legislation would add a blanket six-

month delay to most rules essential to protecting the health,

safety, and welfare of the American public. When the norm is

federal agencies missing Congressional and legal deadlines

for new public protections, rather than meeting or beating

deadlines, the last thing our public needs is more delays.

Bottom Line

A vote for H.R. 4, the ``Jobs for America Act,'' is a vote

against life-saving public health and safety standards and

will put American lives at risk without creating any jobs. We

need stronger public protections, not a weaker system of

safeguards. We need better enforcement of health and safety

and environmental rules, not more needless delays.

We urge you in the strongest terms to vote against the

``Jobs for America Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Americans for Financial Reform,

Washington, DC, September 18, 2014.

Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial

Reform (AFR), we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 4,

the ``Jobs For America Act''. Division III of the legislation

contains a number of extremely problematic provisions that

would require regulatory agencies to satisfy dozens of

additional mandates prior to any regulation of Wall Street,

and which would create numerous additional opportunities for

large financial firms to block any government action in

court. AFR has joined the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

and dozens of other civil society organizations in a joint

letter opposing these provisions.

We would also like to draw attention to Title I of Division

II of this legislation, the ``Small Business Capital Access

and Job Preservation Act''. This legislation would exempt

private equity fund advisors--who include some of the

wealthiest and most significant entities on Wall Street--from

registration and reporting requirements designed to allow

regulators to protect investors and the public and monitor

risk in the financial system.

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, hedge and private equity funds

received almost no regulatory monitoring, despite the fact

that they manage some $3 trillion in assets in total on

behalf of numerous investors, including many pension funds.

The Dodd-Frank Act created more transparency for this

previously dark portion of the markets, by requiring hedge

and private equity fund advisors to register with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), maintain a code of

ethics and a compliance program, and report basic financial

information relevant to systemic risk. This legislation would

effectively exempt all private equity fund advisors from

these requirements.

Since this legislation was voted on as a stand alone bill

in December, 2013 as H.R. 1105, the SEC has reported publicly

on its basic `presence examinations' of private equity fund

advisors pursuant to its new Dodd-Frank responsibilities.

These examinations found widespread evidence of abuse of

investors and violations of the law. In a recent speech,

Andrew Bowden, the SEC's Director of Compliance Inspections

and Examinations, stated that ``when we have examined how

fees and expenses are handled by advisers to private equity

funds, we have identified what we believe are violations of

law or material weaknesses in controls over 50% of the

time''. The speech details evidence of deception and abuse of

investors in other areas as well. Mr. Bowden also stated that

due to the opaque nature of the private equity model and the

limited information rights of investors, outside investors in

private equity funds ``often have little to no chance of

detecting'' these abuses on their own.

Given the findings of the SEC in its initial investigations

of private equity advisors, it is deeply disappointing to see

that the House is once again pursuing a broad exemption from

registration, reporting, and associated ethics requirements

for private equity advisors. The passage of ``The Small

Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act'' would

effectively remove the SEC's most effective tool for

addressing the evidence of widespread investor abuses

recently uncovered through their examinations. We urge you to

oppose this legislation.

Thank you for your consideration. For more information

please contact AFR's Policy Director, Marcus Stanley.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform.

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

It is awkward and embarrassing to stand on this floor to discuss something described as a Jobs for America bill.

Fortunately, we Democrats don't have to expend too much energy because of the lack of credibility that the majority party has with any type of legislation designed to help those people who are without employment.

The irony of this whole thing is that our distinguished chairman spent hours, days, weeks, and months putting together a tax reform bill that, even though it could be challenged in parts, all tax writers and people who respect the necessity of reforming the Tax Code lauded him for the work, the fairness, and, most of all, the lack of partisanship that went into that bill.

Indeed, many of the provisions that are in this bill that could better be described as an opportunity for corporates to avoid paying taxes, many of those provisions in this bill were repealed in the chairman's bill that he presented to the Congress to be considered for reform.

Let me strike that from the record. He did not bring it to the floor for it to be considered for anything. It was a strong political statement that he knew the majority of his party would not support.

Having said that, it was a fine piece of legislation that gained support by eliminating the very same violations of equity and fair play that are now in this bill.

$500 billion tab. $500 billion cost, not paid for, not a promise to pay for. And half of this is to make permanent the extension of bonus appreciation, which all economists, including those in the Congressional Research Service, say that in order to be effective, it should not be made permanent.

In any event, I think, as we go home, we should recognize that there will be opportunity when we come back to really get together and have an effective bill.

To do this, the Republican majority should not bring to the floor bills that have passed the House and been rejected already by the Senate, but should sit down with the administration, with the Senate, with the minority in the House and work out something that is for the good of all Americans.

This happened yesterday, where we had honest, serious disagreements. But at the same time, we came together as a Congress in the House at least on what is good for the country.

So, quite frankly, I don't think I will be using all of my time because what is before the House today is not a jobs bill but a public relations piece of political advertisement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If we were serious about passing a bill that has been rehashed in this House and no action has been taken upon it, common sense and reason would dictate that we would work with the Democrats, work with the Senate, and work with the President to get one passed.

This bill transcends over eight or nine different legislative committees, and the ranking member--one who has so much jurisdiction over this issue--would share with the House and the country what parts of this bill she believes would create jobs, if any part.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Certainly, we all will be getting a lot of mail from the logging companies asking for this legislation in order to create jobs. I wish included in this package would have been the earned income tax credit, a bill that keeps people who work hard each and every day out of poverty by subsidizing their wages, but that is too much like creating jobs, and it is not in this package.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished and articulate Member who serves on the Judiciary Committee and has a ranking position on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over part of this bill.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my friend, who eloquently mentioned how the Congress should and could be working more closely together. Again, I say that yesterday proved it.

I am certain that the eloquent gentleman from Pennsylvania would have to agree that, if we were passing bills in the House and they were not going anywhere, any legislator would have to find out why.

It would seem to me that we would go to the minority party, we would ask

to sit down with the Senate, we would work with the Department of Labor and the administration, and we would do that just before we were going home to attempt to get reelected.

I don't challenge the sincerity of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but just bringing in bills that you know are not going to pass the Senate, bringing in bills the administration has already said that they would veto is not the way to success. It may be a good political statement, but it is certainly not the way to pass legislation.

I have the great honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who has distinguished himself nationally in terms of being a legislator with a heart and common sense.

He is the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, that has attempted to show the entire country exactly what is going on and not going on in the Congress. I look forward to his eloquent remarks on this sensitive, important subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois what he should be doing as a part of the majority, but if I had a bill as good as the one that he had, I certainly would not allow it to be included in this piece of political legislation. Because it would serve the veterans of this great country, I would say, give me a break and let the House and the Senate and the President give this legislation a chance.

But I am not in the majority, and I respect that you are doing the best you can with what you have to work with, and I respect you for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Most Americans know, like with our family, he has the responsibility to suggest to this august body exactly how much we are spending, how much we owe, and which is the best way to bring some balance to it, and I am so proud to be able to serve with him.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland 30 more seconds.

I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to inform the gentleman from Georgia more about these corporations that are attempting to flee the United States, I would like to have good news for the distinguished chairman of the committee that this veterans bill has been so popular on the other side of the Capitol that it appears as though it is included in a Senate bill and, as we talk, is actually being attacked by the Republican minority on the other side. So, at least as relates to the veterans, if we can take it out of this hodgepodge that has politically been put together, maybe collectively we can do something for our beloved veterans.

As far as the gentleman from Georgia is concerned, he had a problem in identifying the U.S. company that is going to receive a bonus, that is fleeing their tax obligation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) so he can help clarify those issues to explain exactly how this provision is costing us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a hardworking gentleman on the Ways and Means Committee, one who has been outspoken on all of the issues that concern national security as well as the protection of our economy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), my friend and a distinguished, eloquent member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), one of the hardest working members of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we close out on this bill, I would like to enter into the Record a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is an objective report on the subject that we have just talked about, and that is whether or not the Affordable Care Act has caused a loss in full-time jobs. This report clearly shows that we have had a rise in full-time work in connection with the health care reform bill.

[From Off the Charts, Sept. 17, 2014]

Census Report Shows Rise in Full-Time Work, Undercutting Claims by

Health Reform Opponents

(By Paul N. Van de Water)

Yesterday's Census Bureau report shows that the share of

workers with full-time, full-year work rose in 2013, while

the share with part-time, part-year work fell. This finding

further undercuts assertions that health reform is causing a

large increase in part-time employment--as proponents of a

House measure to change health reform's rules on covering

full-time workers claim.

Health reform requires employers with at least 50 full-

time-equivalent workers to offer coverage to full-time

employees--defined as those who work at least 30 hours a

week--or pay a penalty. Critics claim that employers are

shifting some employees to part-time work to avoid offering

them health insurance. But the data provide scant evidence of

such a shift.

To the contrary, part-time work became less frequent last

year. ``An estimated 72.7 percent of working men with

earnings and 60.5 percent of working women with earnings

worked full time, year round in 2013, both percentages higher

than the 2012 estimates of 71.1 percent and 59.4 percent

respectively,'' according to the new Census report. These

data are consistent with a recent Urban Institute analysis

that found little evidence that health reform has increased

part-time work.

The share of involuntary part-timers--workers who'd rather

have full-time jobs but can't find them--tells a similar

story. If health reform were distorting hiring practices, as

critics assert, we'd expect the share of involuntary part-

timers to be growing. Instead, as the chart (based on Labor

Department data) shows, it's down by 1\1/2\ percentage points

from its post-recession peak. My colleague Jared Bernstein

finds that this pattern is typical for this stage of a

recovery.

Later this week, the House will consider a proposal (part

of a so-called ``jobs bill'') to raise health reform's

threshold for full-time work from 30 to 40 hours. But this

step would make a shift toward part-time employment much more

likely--not less so.

Only about 7 percent of employees work 30 to 34 hours (that

is, at or modestly above health reform's 30-hour threshold),

but 44 percent of employees work 40 hours a week and thus

would be vulnerable to cuts in their hours if the threshold

rose to 40 hours. Employers could easily cut back large

numbers of employees from 40 to 39 hours so they wouldn't

have to offer them health coverage.

If you exclude workers at firms that already offer health

insurance and thus won't be tempted to cut workers' hours,

more than twice as many workers would face a high risk of

reduced hours under a 40-hour threshold than under the

current 30-hour threshold, according to New York University

economist Sherry Glied.

There's little evidence to date that health reform has

caused a shift to part-time work. There's every reason to

expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment,

as we have explained. And raising the cutoff for the employer

mandate from 30 to 40 hours a week would be a step in the

wrong direction.

Now, the gentleman knows also that in order to get a bill passed, it really helps if you get the cooperation of the President of the United States.

I would like to submit a statement for the Record from the administration which says that if this bill was to reach him that he would be forced to follow the advice of his administration specialists and veto it.

On the other hand, I think it is abundantly clear that the Speaker knows that the President has reached out to him and to the Senate to come together to create jobs.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4--Jobs for America Act

(Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 4 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

4, which incorporates several bills that have previously been

passed by the House during this Congress, including a number

of bills for which the Administration issued Statements of

Administration Policy strongly opposing passage and

indicating that, if presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto them.

The Administration wants to work with Congress to make

progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help

middle class families, including pro-growth business tax

reform. The Administration continues to support tax proposals

that would benefit the Nation's economy and small businesses,

such as making permanent the research and experimentation tax

credit and increased expensing for small businesses. However,

making traditional tax extenders and costly business tax cuts

permanent without offsets, while at the same time allowing

taxes to increase on 26 million working families, represents

the wrong approach.

In addition, the Administration welcomes ideas to improve

the Affordable Care Act. However, H.R. 4 would undermine that

Act by shifting costs to taxpayers and causing fewer

Americans to have employer-sponsored health insurance

coverage.

Also, the Administration is committed to ensuring that the

benefits of regulation justify their costs and that they are

tailored to advance statutory goals in a manner that is

efficient, is cost-effective, and minimizes uncertainty.

However, H.R. 4 would throw all major regulations into a

months-long limbo, marking a significant departure from the

longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and

Legislative branches and, fostering uncertainty and impeding

business investment that is vital to economic growth.

Furthermore, the bill would impose other unnecessary

requirements on agencies that would seriously undermine their

ability to execute their statutory mandates.

Finally, the Administration is committed to sound long-term

management of Federal lands for continued productivity and

economic benefit, as well as for the long-term

health of the wildlife and ecological values sustained by

these holdings. However, H.R. 4 includes numerous harmful

provisions that would impair responsible management of

Federally-owned lands and undermine many important existing

public land and environmental laws, rules, and processes.

If the President were presented with H.R. 4, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Lastly, I would like to say, as the distinguished chair moves on to his retirement from this august body, that for as long as the gentleman has been a member of this Ways and Means Committee that I have admired and I continue to respect the fine work that he has contributed to the committee as well as to this House, and that his honesty, candidness, sincerity, and hard work to make this a better Congress and a better country certainly is appreciated now and will be in the future.

And I would hope that the hard work that he has done on tax reform-- which is a very difficult, complex subject to deal with--that we might try to remember him for the fine work that he has done over these years, rather than on the eve of an election, where sometimes the leadership would want to make a political statement.

I, for one, will never associate him with this piece of legislation, but, rather, for the outstanding contributions that he has made year after year, session after session--not for Republicans, not for the committee, but for this great country. And I thank him for his friendship over the years.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills, the so-called American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act--it is H.R. 2--and the Jobs for America, so-called, Act, H.R. 4. Don't let the titles of these bills fool you. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 won't create any new jobs but would continue to degrade the quality of life and health of the American people.

These bills put more money in the pockets of big industry, corporate welfare, undermine the efficiency of our regulatory activities, and continue to fail to provide opportunities for the middle class, while they continue to enrich international conglomerates and corporations.

Not only are these bills bad, but I should add, Mr. Speaker, the House has already voted on all of these bills that are already included in H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 this session--just another waste of taxpayer time and money here debating and voting on bills that have already been passed. Just as the Republicans have chosen to repeal the Affordable Care Act 53 times, so too we are passing many of these bills for the second time here today if that is the decision the House chooses to make.

Now, I think it is clear, all of us here know, that these bills will not become law, that the Senate did not take them up after the House passed them. There is no indication or reason to believe that in this new configuration and being lumped together in new and more sinister ways that the Senate will react any more positively.

Sadly, it is quite clear that the majority here in the House are either unable or unwilling to bring forth fresh ideas to jump-start the middle class.

These bills instead are bound to political pandering, rewarding of campaign donors and large corporations in advance of elections, instead of taking advantage of our precious few remaining days of session to address the real problems facing our Nation.

I am also dismayed that both of these bills are being reviewed under a closed rule here today. It was fairly recently here on the floor of the House that we celebrated the diamond jubilee of closed rules, 75 closed rules from the Republican Party. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 are the 76th and 77th closed rules this Congress. Just before this Chamber breaks for a 6-week-long recess, the majority has shut down the process of regular order and not allowed Republicans or Democrats to offer our amendments to improve these bills.

Even though they are not bringing new legislation before us today, we should at least allow--at least allow--Democrats and Republicans to offer their ideas to make these bills better. What is the point in passing the exact same bills without even giving Members of this body the ability to make them better?

I offered two amendments in this bill, which I will speak about later, but, unfortunately, neither was made in order. Other Members of this body also offered great ideas to help improve this legislation, but none were allowed. Instead, we have a restricted rule which has shut out debate from Members on both sides of the aisle. If we can defeat this rule, we can move forward with an open process, encouraging and allowing amendments from both sides of the aisle.

We don't have the precious time left for political posturing. While we were talking here now, I got a text on my phone that votes are, in fact, canceled for tomorrow. I am not sure if my colleague is yet aware of that or if the Speaker is yet aware of that, but this, in fact, may be the last day that we are in session before the election.

And yet instead of dealing with immigration reform, there is a bill to pass of more than two-thirds. Instead of protecting LGBT Americans from being fired from their job just because of who they love or who they are, here we are today bringing forward bills that have already passed in different configurations, that would hurt the quality of life for American families, that would hurt the environment and hurt the health of the American people.

This compilation of bills in H.R. 2 is really an oil and gas industry wish list. Now, of course all of us support responsible energy development on Federal lands and private lands, make sure we balance production with our quality of life and our health. This bill, however, would prioritize development over all other uses of land and all other values that we hold as a country. This bill would also reduce important protections that we have in favor of speculative energy exploration and development.

Now is not the time to pass a massive corporate giveaway bill to the oil and gas industry, an industry that is already very profitable. They don't need more taxpayer subsidies just to add to their bottom line, especially not at the expense of our health, our environment, and the enjoyment of our public lands and our quality of life.

While there are many problematic provisions in the bill, several are particularly concerning. One provision in the bill would streamline pipeline approvals, so would even allow for the automatic approval of natural gas pipeline projects without any impact studies or opportunities for public comment.

This bill would also discourage environmental analysis, undermine agency decisions like curbing carbon pollution, and yet another provision would prevent the Federal Government from overseeing fracking activities on Federal lands, an issue near and dear to the hearts of my constituents in the State of Colorado.

It is particularly egregious that given that this bill has a wish list from the oil and gas industry, that somehow, for those of us who support an all-of-the-above energy approach, it left out the wind energy production tax credit.

The wind production tax credit is a solution that has allowed for rapid scaling of wind power over the past couple of decades. So why would we be doubling down with taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry at the same time we are not even renewing the one important subsidy that wind energy has?

Now, I offered two different solutions for this, and I was hoping either one of them would have been a constructive way to approach this on the floor of the House. I offered an amendment with Mr. Perlmutter to simply extend the wind production tax credit for the next 2 years. Now, that would create jobs, encourage private investment, and allow wind energy to compete on a level playing field with the heavily subsidized oil and gas industry.

I also offered another solution--and I am certainly willing to support either--and that solution would be to eliminate the over $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. If we had gone that route, again, at least wind and solar energy would be able to compete on a level playing field because we would stop doling out our precious taxpayer dollars as subsidies to the legacy interests in the oil and gas industry.

That too was not allowed to even be debated, not for 10 minutes, not for 1 minute. Instead, apparently having Friday off was more important than allowing Democratic and Republican Members of this body to present their ideas on how to make a bad bill better.

H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act, is a group of 15 bills that have also been previously passed by the House. Many of them serve to attack our processes we have in place to keep American consumers safe. The bill empowers polluters, bogs down agencies that are charged with protecting the public health. None of them have become law, having already been passed, and I think all my colleagues here know that none of them will become law in this new and more sinister configuration.

Now, I would love to see a balanced tax extender package that lowers the Federal deficit, strengthens our economy, can actually pass the Senate and be signed into law, but I think we all know that is not the bill before us today.

H.R. 4 would actually add to the deficit by making tax cuts for many special interests permanent. A $574 billion deficit-busting bill on our last day of session, what a great lead-in to the general election for the Republicans to present a massive, Big Government spending, $574 billion subsidy bill for our consideration. I think the American people understand the contrast and the different approaches that are in play this year.

Now, an amendment I offered with Mr. Blumenauer, which I mentioned earlier, would have offset some of that cost by eliminating the oil and gas industry subsidies to the tune of $40 billion. Now, the bill still would have cost $534 billion, but it would have cost $40 billion less if we had eliminated the oil and gas subsidies. But, again, apparently having a Friday off is more important to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle than having a full and open debate of the merits or lack of merits of the proposal I advanced with Mr. Blumenauer.

In summary, I oppose the closed rule in addition to the underlying bills.

Now, we could have shown the American people that Congress could end on a positive note, that we could come together and address our broken immigration system, that we could come together to address our deficit; but instead, we are providing yet another example of why Congress continues to have record low approval ratings: rehashed, repackaged, partisan bills costing taxpayers $574 billion, enriching the special interests in corporations, and then going on vacation. And people wonder why the American people aren't thrilled with the United States Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

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

I thought it was worth a try here to reduce the deficit by over $200 billion, create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans, secure our border and restore the rule of law but, apparently, going on vacation on Friday is more important.

These are likely the last votes that this Chamber will take before the election. Unfortunately, rather than move forward on protecting our borders, rather than move forward on reducing our deficit, rather than move forward on so many of the important national priorities we have, we are simply taking up bills that have already passed, reconsidering them under new and more sinister forms, and sending them nowhere at no time.

These bills are not going to be law. They didn't become law last time. It is even harder for them to become law when they are packaged together in new and different ways. There is a word for this kind of legislative activity, and it isn't ``governing.'' It is called ``pandering.''

Rather than spinning our wheels, we should have taken up the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was hoping that I could have gotten the permission under unanimous consent to bring that up. I am confident we have strong support from Democrats and Republicans in this body to pass that bill and to send it on into law.

Unfortunately, more than a year after the Senate has passed immigration reform, the House still refuses to even allow a vote on our bipartisan immigration reform bill that secures our borders and restores the rule of law, reduces our deficit, and creates jobs for Americans; instead, the only votes the House has taken this year on the entire topic of immigration have been to subject DREAMers--who grew up here and know no other country--to deportation and send immigrant children fleeing violence back to their countries, where they face possible persecution or death.

Rather than continuing to waste the American people's time and taxpayer money debating recycled measures over and over again, I wanted to give this body, through my unanimous consent request, one more opportunity to tackle an issue that will get larger and harder to deal with the longer we wait, and that is immigration.

If there are 10 million people here illegally today, Mr. Speaker, if this body continues to object to every motion we make to bring up a law that would secure our borders and restore the rule of law, there is likely to be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. You can count on it.

This Nation deserves to have secure borders, we deserve to restore the rule of law, and we deserve to reflect our values as a Nation in our immigration system. I know we have the votes for this bill.

I urge my colleagues to change their plans for tomorrow and, instead, allow us to come back and pass immigration reform so that we can finally solve this issue, reduce our budget deficit, create jobs for Americans, secure our border, and end this Congress on a positive note, a positive note of moving forward on solving an issue that the American people are screaming out for a solution to rather than rehashing and repackaging special interest bills into new and more sinister forms.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider six separate pieces of legislation that are true priorities for jump- starting the middle class: the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the Healthy Families Act, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, and the Bring Jobs Home Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I encourage us to stay here and address immigration reform so that we can solve this issue for our country, reduce our deficit, and secure our borders.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, number 76 and 77 of this Congress, allowing no allowed amendments from either side, including the very reasonable all-of-the-above energy amendments that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Blumenauer that either would have eliminated oil and gas subsidies or provided a similar and corresponding subsidy for the production tax credit and wind energy, so at least it can compete on a level playing field with the oil and gas industry.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I am going to have more to say about this bill later, but I want to comment on the comments that were just made to us by the gentleman from Kentucky.

He suggested that we don't need to do anything more about climate change because greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States. Well, that is not an accurate story because, while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008 and 2009 during the economic recession, since that time our overall emissions have grown. Cumulatively, U.S. emissions grew, not fell, in 2010 and 2011, the most recent years for which data is available.

But the fact of the matter is that if coal is being displaced by natural gas, it is not because of any regulation; it is because the market forces are moving in that direction. It is just cheaper.

And why do we want to say that is wrong? Let the market work its will.

But unless we regulate the emissions from powerplants that cause greenhouse gases to be spewed into the air, we are neglecting the major reason we have climate change in this country today.

This bill would prevent the EPA from doing anything about the problem. Burning coal would be completely unregulated, and we would continue to add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

I think that this is hiding their heads in the sand, denying that there is climate change, denying that we need to do anything about it, pretending like it is not a problem. This is a disservice to the American people and the future of our economy.

Those businesses that develop the technologies for the future, which will be technologies that reduce carbon pollution, are going to be the place where the economies are going to be benefited, not those that deny the problem and do nothing about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a new bill to be presented on the House floor. It is a compilation of bills that have already been proposed and passed, for the most part, on a partisan Republican basis.

People have complained on the other side of the aisle that their bills didn't go anywhere. Well, they didn't go anywhere because they didn't have support in the other body, the U.S. Senate. The President of the United States said he would veto it.

They can't pass a bill in the House with Republican votes and put it into law. So if you can't pass a law without working with the Democrats and reaching compromises, what Republicans think is the most effective thing to do is to say it over and over and over again.

Let's not forget, we know that our Republican colleagues didn't like the Affordable Care Act, sometimes known as ObamaCare, so on this House floor we voted over 50 times to repeal it.

The Republicans said we are going to repeal it and replace it. Well, we never heard what they are going to replace it with. They just wanted to repeal it. Well, they didn't repeal it when they passed the first vote, and they didn't repeal it when they passed the 50th vote. But they thought if they say it over and over and again and do it over and over again, they would get somewhere, I presume.

When psychologists talk about this, they call it perseveration, saying the same thing over and over again.

But I don't think this is a reasonable way to legislate. If they want to legislate and you don't have the power, you have to compromise. You have to talk with the President. You have to talk with the Senate majority. You have to talk with your own colleagues. But the Republicans don't want to talk to anybody except themselves over and over and over again.

Let me give you an example. Since Republicans took control of the House less than 4 years ago, they have cast over 500 antienvironmental votes. They have voted over 500 times to weaken protection for public health and the environment, to let polluters off the hook, and even to deny science.

Well, I presume they think that is a good idea. They have voted against clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. They have voted to give taxpayer dollars to oil companies. They have voted to allow more toxic mercury pollution in our air and more contaminants in our drinking water.

I suppose they think that is a good idea, but others don't agree with them nor, I think, do the American people.

They have voted repeatedly to deny the reality of climate change and block any action to cut carbon pollution. They don't want a cap-and- trade. They don't want a price on carbon. They don't want the EPA to regulate.

What is their plan? Well, their plan is to deny the existence of climate change and pretend it is not doing any harm.

We have kept track of these votes that we consider antienvironmental, and there were over 300 antienvironmental votes last Congress, and today Ranking Member DeFazio and I released another report that there were over 200 more antienvironment votes in this Congress.

Now, Republicans like to complain about a mythical war on coal. It is a fantasy. But there is a war on the environment that is being waged on the floor of the House, and the bill before us today is proof of that. It contains dozens of antienvironment provisions.

All of us want prosperity and security for America. We know, many of us, that climate change is harming us today through droughts and fires and floods and more, and we know that it will endanger our children's future if we don't act.

Democrats, for the most part, have recognized the threat and we know that we can tackle it while, at the same time, growing jobs and our economy.

How do we know this? Because that was the history of the Clean Air Act. Every time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, industry opponents said it would cost too much, it would weaken our economy, it would mean lost jobs, but when we acted, we found that our air is cleaner and our economy is stronger.

Republicans take a much different approach. They refuse to admit that climate change is real because then, if they did, they would have to do something about it. Their policies embodied in this bill deny the problem and threaten our future.

Remember the health care debate? We said it is not fair to discriminate against people.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

We said it is not fair to discriminate and deny, allow insurance companies to deny the chance for people with preexisting conditions to buy insurance.

The Republicans said, Oh, yeah, we don't think that is a good idea, but they didn't have a plan to do anything about it. They were happy to let it continue.

They wanted to say it was okay for insurance companies to put caps on the amount that the policies would pay. They wanted a system where people were priced out of insurance; if they couldn't afford it, well, that is just too bad.

They deny the realities of what has been happening to millions of Americans, and now we have a health care law that is benefiting millions of Americans.

This bill is not about health care, but they are denying these environmental problems and they are trying to keep Federal agencies from doing their job.

Powerplants are the single largest uncontrolled source of carbon pollution in the United States. EPA has proposed critically important regulations to cut carbon pollution for powerplants in a balanced, cost-effective, commonsense way.

These rules would cut smog, and they would stop deadly particulate pollution. They would save thousands of lives per year and avoid tens of billions of dollars in costs, but this bill eliminates EPA's authority to issue any rules. Nothing can happen.

Mr. Speaker, powerplants aren't the only source of carbon pollution. Tar sands are another big source. They produce 17 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil, yet this bill grants a regulatory earmark to the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline, effectively exempting it from all U.S. Federal permitting requirements, including ones that apply to every other major construction project in the United States.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

This bill creates a new process to rubberstamp every other pending and future tar sands pipeline. It even exempts these massive projects from the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting the NEPA review, which was adopted by Congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, to only a tiny sliver of the pipeline only where it crosses the border. There are many other anti-environmental provisions. This bill would allow the Department of Energy to veto the rules established by the EPA, even though they are not within the jurisdiction or the expertise of the Department of Energy.

This all may make sense to the oil companies, and this may be a giveaway to the Koch Brothers, but I don't think Americans would agree that this is a good bill. Energy interests should not automatically trump everything else we care about, such as raising healthy children.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote against this bill. We have had it on the floor too many times, and I hope that we defeat it this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I won't take 25 minutes to rebut the statement that was just made. I yield myself 3 minutes.

I am impressed by the statement we had from a man who is trying to educate, as he says, the American people in that Republicans worry about 11 million people not working. I don't know if that number is right or wrong, but we have got millions of people without jobs today. It is because the Congress is busy passing, over and over and over again, bills to benefit the oil companies and the energy industry, and not to help people get jobs.

Now, they care so much about them, but they won't give them unemployment compensation. They care so much about them that they want to take away their food stamps. They care so much about them that they don't want to allow them to have a minimum living wage. They care so much about them that they want them to go to the lowest paying jobs they can possibly find, and if they can't find them, well, it must be their own fault.

Harry Reid is the majority leader in the Senate. The Senate allows amendments to any bill--they don't have to be germane--but in the House of Representatives, no bill or amendment can be offered unless it is germane or permitted under the rule, and the Rules Committee is controlled by the Republican leadership in the House.

If we would have been allowed to have voted on an immigration bill that passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, it would have passed the House, but we were denied that opportunity. If we had been allowed to vote on background checks on gun purchases so that we wouldn't find guns and assault weapons in the hands of the people who are a danger to their communities because of mental illness, or who have criminal records where they have already used guns for illegal purposes, that would have passed. Even a majority of the National Rifle Association supports that kind of measure.

Let's not be so pious as we educate the American people to say, ``Oh, in the Senate, they can't even consider these things,'' because, in the House, we are denied every day an opportunity to talk about many things. Let me give you another example that is pertinent to this debate.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the issue of climate change. We have not been able to get a single hearing that would bring in the scientists to tell us why they are concerned about climate change, to tell us all the pronouncements from consensus discussions among scientists internationally and here from the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences and others as to why they think this is a problem that we have got to deal with. If you don't even allow the scientists to talk, you are purposely encouraging your own ignorance and acting upon it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who ought to be here rightfully as a full voting Member of the House, in my opinion.

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

I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand what the gentlelady has said is that, if we had passed a transportation bill, that would have provided help for our infrastructure and provided jobs. We didn't vote for that bill even once.

The gentlelady also said we should have done a paycheck fairness law. Well, we didn't have a chance to vote on that. The Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the House wouldn't allow it to be brought to the House floor.

So many young people are struggling with student loans, and there have been proposals to deal with that, yet we were not allowed to even vote on a bill to deal with the student loan problem.

We haven't tackled the real things that people care about, and, if they care about what is in this bill today, it has been passed by the House. Why aren't we moving on and using the time on the House floor for other worthwhile purposes?

I think that is a question that the American people are going to have to think about as they go to the polls in another month, but we have had a 6-week recess. Now, we have been here for 2 whole weeks, and, now, we are going to take another recess until the election, and then we will come back for maybe another couple of weeks.

It doesn't mean you have to work too hard in the Congress of the United States to get nothing done. We are getting nothing done, and the American people are losing out.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 727, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to remove Federal Government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy reliably to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the cost of energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand here on the House floor, only a few hundred yards away from the Senate, and it feels as if we are worlds apart. In the House, we are listening to the American people who are telling us that it is time to expand American energy production.

Hardworking Americans know how important energy is in their lives. They need it to commute to and from work. It fuels the buses that take our kids to school. It powers the businesses on Main Street.

It provides jobs and improves the livelihoods of millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in President Obama's economy; and, Mr. Speaker, Sunday, it will power the Jumbotron at CenturyLink Field in Seattle as the Seahawks take on the Broncos.

Unfortunately, on the other side of the Capitol, these calls to expand American energy production are falling on deaf ears. The House has passed dozens of energy bills, including a number from the House Natural Resources Committee, on which the Senate has failed to act. By doing so, they are standing in the way of American job creation, affordable energy, and increased national security.

H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act, would protect and expand American energy production by removing this administration's roadblocks and preventing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

Mr. Speaker, since President Obama took office, total Federal offshore oil production has dropped 13 percent, Federal offshore natural gas production has dropped by nearly one-half, and the Obama administration has placed over 85 percent of America's offshore acreage off limits.

Onshore, Mr. Speaker, it is the same story. This administration has had the 4 lowest years of Federal acres leased for onshore energy production going back to 1988. It has also pledged to impose a duplicative layer of red tape on hydraulic fracturing, which would only hurt American job creation.

The Obama administration has also waged a war on coal and on coal jobs. Coal is a reliable and affordable energy resource that provides 30 percent of America's electricity and supports millions of American jobs.

Unfortunately, with one proposed regulation by the Obama administration, those jobs could disappear. Their rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule could cost 7,000 coal jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States.

But there is good news, and the good news are the provisions in these bills. These provisions are a direct response to the Obama administration's actions that have locked up our energy resources. The bill would end the regulatory delays blocking the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

After nearly 6 years of review, this is a commonsense solution that would eliminate the need for a Presidential permit, addresses all other necessary Federal permits, and limit litigation that would delay the project.

The bill would also expand offshore energy production. It would require this administration to responsibly move forward with new offshore energy production in areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources. What a novel idea, going where the product is, and those areas include areas off the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.

It also requires the administration to hold oil and natural gas lease sales that have been delayed or canceled, such as offshore of Virginia. This expanded offshore production would generate over $1 billion in new revenue to the Federal Treasury and create up to 1.2 millions of jobs long-term.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand onshore energy production. It would reform the leasing and permitting process to remove unnecessary delays, set

clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources, and establish Internet-based auctions for leases. It would also help foster expanded energy production on tribal lands.

The bill would stop the Federal Government from imposing duplicative Federal hydraulic regulations and prevent it from implementing job- destroying coal regulations. It would help protect consumers from EPA regulations that could destroy jobs and increase energy costs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would expand production of clean, renewable hydropower by removing outdated barriers and streamlining the regulatory process. It would authorize hydropower development at existing manmade water canals and pipes at 12 Bureau of Reclamation projects.

Mr. Speaker, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act is a commonsense action plan to create over 1 million new American jobs and provide relief to hardworking Americans who are feeling the squeeze of higher gasoline and electricity prices. It would strengthen our economy and--probably more importantly in this unsettled world--increase America's energy security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my colleague from Oregon, across the Columbia River from my district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), a hardworking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of my classmates.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the chairman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the gentleman that we still have several more. I will advise you when we get down to that point, but we do have several Members still waiting to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It has been acknowledged on both sides of the aisle that this bill is a package of bills that has passed the Senate. It has been talked about that the Senate hasn't acted on the individual bills. It has been talked about the Senate hasn't acted on a lot of bills.

As a matter of fact, the main bill we passed yesterday, the continuing resolution--which is a terrible way to run the government, by the way, when you haven't got certainty--was passed largely because the Senate had not passed one of the 13 House bills out of the Senate. How do you negotiate when you have that sort of a situation?

Here is a point that has not been made today--and maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't familiar with what our Founders envisioned when they created a bicameral legislative body.

In order for our system to work, both Houses have to pass bills. Now, the American people, in their judgment--

you know, they made good judgments every 2 years. Sometimes, some of us don't like what that judgment is--but, in their wisdom, they created one of the Houses that is controlled by the Democrats, and, in their wisdom, they created a House that is controlled by Republicans.

Now, just by the very definition of that, clearly, you are going to have two different views--clearly, you are going to have two different views. I acknowledge that, and I doubt if anybody on the other side would dispute that too.

When we talk about sending bills that we think are important from here over to the Senate--and, by the way, I should add that within this package of bills were a number of bills that came out of the House Natural Resources Committee that I have the privilege to chair. Every one of them, every one of them passed with bipartisan support. That means there are Democrats that voted for it.

Here is the issue: if the Senate, then, has a different view on these topics than we do, then fine. Pass a bill. Pass a bill. If there is a difference between the House version and the Senate version, we have a means to work that out. It is called going to conference, but the fact is the Senate hasn't passed anything.

So how do you go to conference? The only way that we find that we could make our point over and over and over again is to say, ``Okay. We will send it over.'' Maybe somebody, somebody in the other body will finally get the message and say, ``Maybe we ought to pass it.''

Finally, I just want to make another point too. I had the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee for 12 years, and, yes, the Rules Committee, in a larger body like the House, does set the rules for debate.

When the Democrats were in the majority, they set the rules for debate that we criticized. Obviously, they are criticizing us because we are setting the rules for the debate, but my friend from California said that the Senate doesn't work that way with rules. They work by unanimous consent, that anybody can offer an amendment on any bill.

Well, that may be, that may be how the Senate rules work, but, when it is manipulated by the majority leader, all that goes away. It is a process that--I admit I don't know a whole lot about the Senate rules-- but it is a process called filling the amendment tree, amendments to be offered, and the majority leader fills the tree, and nobody has an amendment.

It has gotten so bad, so bad over there in the last 6 years that the junior Senator from Alaska, the junior Senator from Alaska who has been there for 6 years has not had an opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor, and the junior Senator happens to be a member of the majority party. You talk about openness. There is no openness that way.

We feel in this body here that the best way to make the case by debating bills that we think are important for the American people-- jobs bills, energy bills, energy security bills--the best way to do that is to continue to send the same stuff over to the Senate. Maybe, maybe--because hope springs eternal, at least from my perspective--they will take one of these up.

All they have to do, by the way, is take up one of these bills and change it and send it back over here, and we will negotiate the difference, but they haven't even done that. You see, that was never acknowledged during this whole debate of defense of what the Senate has or has not done, but, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened, and that is why we are where we are.

Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, a very good bill that deals with energy and energy security and American jobs. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to respond to a Democratic motion to recommit, and I have heard a whole gamut of them in the time that I have had the privilege to do that, and I kind of surmise, from reading the motion to recommit, that he is talking about energy and energy supply.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the underlying legislation is all about. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about how oil and gas production has gone up in the United States--increased in the United States--which it has.

But, Mr. Speaker, he left out the important part: it is not because of this administration, it is in spite of this administration's actions, because all of that activity is increasing on State and private lands where they don't have the burdensome regulation from the Federal Government inhibiting that growth.

However, the focus of this legislation is to do exactly the same thing which happened on private and State lands on Federal lands because, if you have a problem with supply, what is the best way to respond to that? You increase the opportunity for supply.

What does that do to the marketplace? In the long run, it tends to lower prices. Who benefits? American people, American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say these motions to recommit have been procedural motions. They have been political motions over time, not that that isn't something we deal with on the floor, but, once again, it is a motion that, I think, is not worthy of passing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject--reject--the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.