Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Turkey's Republic Day, which was celebrated on October 29, 2010. On this day, America's ally Turkey commemorated its 87th year as a Republic. Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, officially became a Republic in 1923--paving the way for the creation of a modern nation- state.

Turkey has been and continues to be an important ally to the United States. It serves an important role in the international community, and as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, it has supported the United States on many critical issues.

I congratulate Turkey and its citizens on this important day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for strengthening the bilateral relationship the United States has with Taiwan. Taiwan is an important ally and trading partner, and we must continue to support its defense.

Taiwan faces a continuous threat from the People's Republic of China, PRC, and must be capable of defending itself in the event of an attack. Section 2(b)(4) of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which is the cornerstone of United States-Taiwan relations, declares that it is the policy of the United States ``to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' Section 3(b) of the Act stipulates that both the President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and services that Taiwan needs.

On January 29, 2010 the Obama Administration announced to Congress a planned arms package to Taiwan totaling $6.4 billion. The package included 114 Patriot PAC-3 missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, 12 Harpoon missiles for training purposes, two Osprey class refurbished mine hunters, and military communication equipment. This package was extremely significant and will help ensure the security of the Taiwan Strait. However, this package did not include the 66 F-16 fighter aircrafts, which were requested by Taiwan in 2006. I request that the Obama Administration give full, prompt, and fair consideration to Taiwan's request for the F-16 fighter aircrafts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Irving for its successful use and implementation of the Lean Six Sigma Program.

Understanding the need for a more responsive and efficient government, the city of Irving became the first municipality in the State of Texas, and second in the country, to holistically utilize the Lean Six Sigma Program citywide. Irving initiated this program in October 2007 and expanded it citywide in its efforts to streamline and improve the efficiencies of city operations and staffing structures. The city's emphasis to improve overall customer satisfaction underscores their attentiveness to the concerns of Irving residents and businesses and working diligently to address those issues, making the great city of Irving a better place to live and work.

I commend the city of Irving for its innovative thinking and actively seeking new ways to better serve the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the city of Irving for its successful implementation of the Lean Six Sigma Program.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern, UTSW, Medical Center for attaining the prestigious National Cancer Institute, NCI, designation.

The NCI designation is a national benchmark bestowed upon the top cancer centers in recognition of their innovative research and excellence in patient care. The Simmons Center exemplifies this and is the first and only medical center in North Texas to attain this designation. Founded in 1989, the Simmons Cancer Center has been devoted to reducing the impact of cancer, aggressively striving to be at the forefront of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The dedicated clinical and research faculty and their staff conduct numerous clinical trials and develop and test new cancer drugs. I commend their commitment to conducting cutting-edge medical research and providing quality care.

I am also pleased to recognize the Simmons family for their generosity and firm belief in giving back to our local community. Their charitable donation established this cancer center and they have remained strong supporters. Over the years, they have given and pledged over $100 million to enhance the cancer programs at UTSW. With the continued help of numerous supporters and foundations, UTSW will be able to expand its reach and help countless more individuals affected by cancer.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated efforts of UTSW and the Simmons Cancer Center to combating cancer and in congratulating them on achieving this nationally recognized status.

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, we had a very vigorous and spirited debate. It is continuing, although with less fervency, on the floor today about the insistence of the Democratic Party to blame corporations for the ills, blame George Bush for all the problems, when, in fact, it's been 15 straight months of unemployment, over 9.5 percent that the Democratic Party is personally responsible for.

The substance of this bill is not just about teachers. We already know it's about a lot of other issues. One of them is about the competitiveness of America as we do business overseas.

The U.S. Chamber says about this bill, it ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''

Madam Speaker, the Democratic Party is hung up on this issue, and yet they will blame George Bush for the bad legislation that they passed.

The facts of the case are simple. Americans invest in the stock market, American companies need to seek markets all around the world, and this bill will make it far, far more difficult for American companies to invest in their operations that make money. Making money is what keeps the stock market, 401(k)s, and lots of other retirement plans up to where they are able to receive the funds as a benefit of a worldwide economic opportunity.

Madam Speaker, the Democratic party is once again going to go and harm not just the stock market but employment and our ability to make a comeback.

The National Association of Manufacturers says, ``Imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees.'' It is Americans who work here who produce goods and services that are sold overseas, and what we want to do is to take away the ability that companies have to sell overseas.

That is the legacy of this Democratic Party, higher taxes, more rules and regulations, debt, and record unemployment.

This is not how you give opportunities to people to build jobs. It is job destruction, and that's what the Democratic party is known for. This comes in line with the three largest political items of this Democrat majority that net lose America 10 million American jobs.

Don't blame somebody else, Madam Speaker. Please stand up and admit. You have been in office now, not just Ms. Pelosi, for 4 almost years now, but the President now for a year and a half.

Pin the tail on the donkey.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, once again this morning my Democratic colleagues are trying to scare this country. The facts of the case are that, as a result of the economic downturn of this country because of high taxes and more rules and regulations, more people are unemployed in America today than since the Great Depression. That is what will kill Social Security.

Republicans are not interested in killing Social Security. They are interested in America having a vibrant economic output. They are interested in people being employed and being able to take care of their families. And so perhaps the Democratic message will be to scare seniors and scare people about what Republicans would do to Social Security. Let's get it right: Republicans want to make sure that we have a vibrant economy. We are for Social Security. We support Social Security. I am disappointed that the Democratic agenda is going to be-- that we heard about today--to scare seniors about their future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, today, a brand new day. It is the 35th time this Congress that I have handled a rule. Once again, it is another closed rule. In fact, as we aim for our 6-week recess, we recognize how important it is for Members of this body to go back home and to receive feedback about what a great job we are doing here in Congress, to have the American people be very supportive of increasing taxes and

of more rules and regulations. Today, we are sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump because we are going to take it out on energy companies. It is going to be a very interesting recess.

Mr. Speaker, as I talk about this being my 35th time during this session to handle a closed rule, in fact, the Democratic majority has not allowed one open rule, not for me and not for my colleagues. There has not been one open rule this entire Congress. Yet, this week, we are passing two appropriations bills, which, under normal rules and regulations, at least before the Democrats took over, would have been open to all Members to have come in and to have not only openly debated but to have shown up on the floor and to have offered their ideas about appropriations bills.

I just don't believe that closing down debate, limiting Members' abilities to come talk, having limited amendments, and really shutting out Republicans and Democrats--that is, unless you are in the leadership of the Democratic Party--is really the way that we should run this ship. Once again, during the break, I think the American people are going to have a chance to provide some feedback to Members. It is my hope that we will listen.

Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem was and what the facts say. The investigation of events should be completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable, and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get that.

What we are doing is trying to put through a bill here where we already assume that we understand what the problem is, and, of course, if you are in Washington, you understand these energy companies just need to be taxed more. We need to raise taxes on them to discourage the drilling in the gulf.

There was a comment made a few minutes ago that the Democrat majority wants to save jobs from going overseas. In fact, that is exactly what this will do. It will keep America continually reliant on energy from other nations around the globe, nations that not only do not like America but, perhaps, even worse than that, will use those resources that we give them against America. It is a bad deal. Anybody who listens to this debate can figure out in half a heartbeat that using American resources, keeping American jobs and more fully working with the industry instead of trying to punish the industry would be what any rational American would do.

Once again, we are not rational in this town. It is about punishing people. It's just like President Obama, who wants to pick a fight with everybody in town in order to go and ruin the free enterprise system. Well, that is what we are doing again today. We are on record. We are going to have the vote today. We are going to lose thousands of jobs.

Yesterday, the gentleman Mr. Scalise from Louisiana and the gentleman Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana came forward to the Rules Committee. They talked about this moratorium in the gulf and that, if it continues, thousands of jobs will be lost in their home State. Thousands of middle class Americans who need to have work, once again, will be in trouble.

The Obama moratorium on deepwater drilling has already cost tens of thousands of jobs. This bill will eliminate even more American energy jobs, making it harder and more expensive to produce both energy on- and offshore. Additionally, this legislation will only further enhance our economic troubles in the gulf region and throughout the Nation because it will create a diminished supply of energy which will be available at a higher cost, and the American consumers will be the people who will be paying for this--I'm sorry--the taxpayers, also, because they will be the people who will be unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, my good friends on that side of the aisle are using H.R. 3534 to exploit this oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to rush to Washington and put energy items on their agenda.

The underlying bill imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes. This underlying bill imposes job-killing charges and higher taxes for both onshore natural gas and oil production and offshore. The bill creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending, $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two new government bureaucracies that have absolutely nothing to do with the oil spill. It raises taxes over $22 billion in 10 years. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families, businesses, hurt domestic job creation, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. But don't worry, I'm sure we can blame George Bush for the passage of this bill and the outcome that will come from that.

Additionally, H.R. 3534 requires a Federal takeover of State authority to permit in State waters which reverses 60 years of precedence of law in this country. Why are we rewarding the mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the Federal Government and giving them expanded authority now? They were a joint partner down in the gulf, and they failed too. We should not empower them even more.

The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate all independent producers from offshore drilling if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. However, this does not mean that drilling up and down our coasts will stop. Nope. Countries like China and Russia are in the process of negotiating with Cuba for access to these same oil fields right now, which means that others will come and reap the benefits, sell it to us at an exorbitant price, and we will be shipping American jobs overseas.

According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight: ``By 2020, an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in Federal, State and local taxes from the gulf region over 10 years.''

The gulf region has suffered enough, Mr. Speaker. Our consumers and businesses need an adequate supply of natural gas and energy. What this Congress does is only going to diminish jobs, lower local revenue in areas, and cause our businesses to be noncompetitive because we will pay more for the energy to supply the needs to business.

Week after week, Mr. Speaker, I come down to this floor to debate the importance of economic growth and job opportunities, and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue this same agenda, the same agenda that does not work. And then they question, Why don't you Republicans-- at least one of you--come vote for this? Well, the answer is, We're not going to vote for what's not going to work. And what does not work, Mr. Speaker, is the taxing, the borrowing, the spending policies that week after week after week diminish jobs and push our economy into further debt.

Unemployment is the highest it's been. More people are unemployed in this country than since the time of the Great Depression and for a longer period of time. That is not a record of success, Mr. Speaker. It's one that I would be embarrassed about. Americans want solutions. They want Congress to produce results, and this bill does not do that. It's my hope that when we go home for the August break once again that the American people say what's on their mind, and I think it's up to us, as Members of Congress, to listen.

Additionally, in the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Cassidy from Louisiana offered an amendment that passed the committee without any objections for Congress to establish a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the oil spill, yet it has been stripped from the bill, and that amendment was not made in order last night in the Rules Committee. This Democrat majority continues to use their power to shut out bipartisan solutions to everyday issues that are here on the floor.

Under this rule, we're also providing consideration for H.R. 5749, the Offshore Whistleblower Protection Act. While providing whistleblower protections for offshore workers is essential to the safety of those workers and others, I remain concerned that H.R. 5749,

which was just introduced on Monday evening of this week, should have gone through regular order review, allowing Members the appropriate time not only to read the bill--I'm sorry, did I say read the bill? Yes, Members need to be able to read the bill, understand the content, have some dialogue, and then it would allow them an opportunity to provide feedback. Of course, I know and you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the Rules Committee, anything that deals with common sense, bipartisanship, or that might be a position taken by some part of the free enterprise system is shut out of the Rules Committee week after week, day after day.

So with the current fiscal crisis our government faces and record unemployment, why do we have this bill on the floor today? To make unemployment even worse--in particular, in Louisiana and Mississippi-- increase taxes, further implode the debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense why week after week this Democrat majority does that. We should be doing job-saving and job-creation bills, not job-killing bills. But once again, this is the agenda of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans need this Congress to get it. We need pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and keep America competitive with the world. This legislation further diminishes private sector jobs while adding billions to our national debt.

So I don't know when my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to catch on; but it is my hope that at the August break, they will have an opportunity to hear from Americans who are unemployed, seeking an opportunity to find a job who look to this Congress to do something about the jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the question once again today, Where are the jobs? Where is the agenda on this floor that will be about saving jobs? And, Mr. Speaker, perhaps more pointedly, when will we quit killing jobs in this country with an agenda by the Democratic Party that the Democratic Members vote for that diminishes America's ability to compete?

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear back from my colleagues about how this change is doing such a great job for their constituents back home. Robust, I am sure, economic times in Massachusetts to where they don't have to worry about an adequate supply of energy or the costs associated with that.

But, Mr. Speaker, today I received a copy of a Key Vote Alert from the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber represents employers and employees all across this country. They have some things to say about this bill, too, which every single Member of Congress has a chance to receive. That doesn't mean they agree with it or want to read it.

But it says this: ``There's a bright line between increasing safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for business that oil and gas companies that operate in the United States will take their business elsewhere. That line is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.''

I continue from this Key Alert, U.S. Chamber. ``At this time, it is premature for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively determined.''

Mr. Speaker, once again it's a ready, aim, fire by our friends the Democrats, who bring bills to the floor, once again a mundane bill that really nobody knew was going to be here on the floor, and here it is. I continue, ``The bill would make it economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in the short-and long- term, and could cripple the gulf coast economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs''--they should say that remain--``the 46,000 jobs that the oil and natural gas industry supports in the gulf coast region.''

Mr. Speaker, they've got it right. They've got it exactly right what this bill does. What they fail to talk about is the reason why. The reason why is it's an assault on the free enterprise system. It's a continued assault on people who are workers in this country, a continued assault to raise the price at the pump and to raise the price of heating and fuel that fuel our businesses.

Mr. Speaker, as we already understand, and we know this, the cost of energy now exceeds the cost of employees. And if we keep this dangerous trend up, rather than providing reliable sources of energy at a cost- effective price, it means that America will continue to be noncompetitive. Once again, a direct result of this Congress, a direct result of the votes that take place in this body.

The facts of the case are the Chamber also strongly opposes new energy taxes, which will cost consumers $25 billion at the pump and in their homes. It's a continued assault on America. And I am disappointed. The Chamber nailed it. They got it right, Mr. Speaker.

Congressional and Public Affairs,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, strongly opposes H.R. 3534, the ``Consolidated

Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,'' in its

current form. There is a bright line between increasing

safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for

business that oil and gas companies that operate in the

United States will take their business elsewhere. That line

is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.

As the Chamber has stated in prior communications, Congress

should resist the rush to act on legislation in the midst of

the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf; priority number one must

remain permanently sealing the well and mitigating the

extensive environmental damage. At this time, it is premature

for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the

causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that

led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively

determined. The Obama Administration's National Commission on

the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has

not yet reported its findings, and the Chamber believes that

an independent commission, similar to the one included in

bipartisan legislation reported by the Senate Energy and

Natural Resources Committee, would inform the legislative

process by providing important data, technical analysis, and

expertise.

H.R. 3534 would have serious and negative impacts on U.S.

energy and economic security. The bill would make it

economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for

energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be

driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would

increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in

the short- and long-term, and could cripple the Gulf Coast

economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs that the oil and

natural gas industry supports in the Gulf Coast region.

Provisions eliminating the cap on liability provided in the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 could discourage major integrated

oil companies as well as independent producers from exploring

in domestic waters, as they would be unable to afford

adequate insurance to cover the potential liability risk, if

they could obtain insurance coverage at all. Independent

producers, which hold approximately 90 percent of Gulf leases

and produce approximately 30 percent of the oil and 60

percent of natural gas in the Gulf, would be particularly

hard hit. Moreover, the retroactive application of the

liability cap raises serious constitutional issues that may,

if stricken down by the courts, force Congress to readdress

the issue in the future.

H.R. 3534 would force the CEOs of energy companies to

attest personally that their systems will never, ever fail

and that their companies are in strict compliance with all

environmental and natural resource laws. Violations would

subject CEOs to civil penalties, through citizen suits and

enforcement actions, and criminal liability, which could

include imprisonment. In practice, these provisions in H.R.

3534 are unworkable, and few--if any--companies could meet

them. The intent of this provision appears to be political

demagoguery of energy company CEOs. However, the real impact

of these provisions would be severe; few domestic or foreign

energy companies would be willing to explore for energy in

U.S. waters.

The Chamber strongly opposes the new energy taxes included

in H.R. 3534, which Congressional Budget Office analysis

indicates would ultimately cost consumers $25 billion. Termed

a ``conservation tax,'' it would do nothing of the sort; all

monies raised by this tax would go directly to the federal

treasury for Congress to appropriate. Congress should not

exploit the tragedy in the Gulf as a rationale to levy

excessive new energy taxes on American consumers and

producers. The nascent economic recovery cannot afford

additional extreme taxes on domestically produced commodities

that the entire United States depends on every day.

Ultimately, such new taxes could encourage American operators

to move investments elsewhere. Excessive taxes levied

exclusively on domestically produced energy would also

increase U.S. dependence on imported energy as it did in the

1980s, further increasing the risks to U.S. energy security.

The Environmental Diligence provisions, purportedly

intended to ban BP leases, would set conditions so that

virtually no firm could develop Gulf energy resources. H.R.

3534 would create a ``doomed to fail'' policy, making certain

isolated violations of safety, health and environmental

statutes punishable by a ban on leasing or exploration on

federal land. When viewed in conjunction with the CEO

liability provisions, the Environmental Diligence provisions

would create, in essence, a system whereby making even one

mistake could bar future access to leasing. Rather than

enduring the hostile and risky relationship with federal

regulators that this legislation would force upon both

regulators and the regulated community, firms would likely

forgo further investments in U.S. waters.

H.R. 3534 would expand dramatically the reach and scope of

federal environmental law by imposing unnecessary layers of

duplicative environmental reviews, prolonging decisions on

permits, and changing the criteria agencies must consider

when issuing a lease or permit. Furthermore, the legislation

would minimize the ability of federal regulators to consider

the economic benefits of

energy exploration projects. As a result, the economic growth

of communities along the Gulf Coast and U.S. energy security

would become much less relevant to federal regulators under

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

I thank the gentlewoman for letting me know that she is through with her speakers.

Mr. Speaker, here we are on the floor talking about raising energy prices, diminishment of jobs, further debt, a Federal Government that's going to be empowered to do more in the gulf with regulation, and yet we haven't even taken time to find out what really happened, what needs to be corrected, and how that needs to take place.

Secondly, we learned very clearly that a bipartisan idea about us making sure that we do look into this, to give the American people the confidence that we can work together in Washington that went through the Natural Resources Committee without objection on a bipartisan basis, goes up to the Rules Committee, rejected. Rejected straight up.

We learned again today, no open rule in this entire Congress. My 35th time to come to the floor leading the charge for Republicans on a rule, not an open rule. Today we had an opportunity just a minute ago to provide the information from the U.S. Chamber. What's the impact of this bill? Diminishment of American jobs. More taxation on consumers at the pump. And perhaps worst of all, people who will lose their jobs. Tremendous job loss.

And in the long run, we learned that what happens is that it's not an unintended consequence when these jobs move overseas; it is a direct result of the pressure, the taxation, the rules, the regulations, the absolute meaning of the bill to diminish American jobs and to push our reliance on foreign oil and jobs overseas. That is the agenda of the Democratic Party: higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, pushing jobs overseas. We don't need those jobs here. Higher prices for consumers and incredible unemployment and debt.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that instead of us being on the floor to diminish and kill jobs, which is what this Democratic majority does, we should be enhancing jobs. I am disappointed to know that, as the gentleman from Louisiana came to talk about people who they represent, those ideas were tossed out of hand. It's a real shame.

We do not have a body that's interested in encouraging economic development, investment, or the creation of jobs. In fact, what we are for is a political agenda that we are working through now, about two- tenths through this agenda, that will net lose 10 million American jobs, the continued assault against employers and certainly the workers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's, once again, another sad day. I know it's another new day in Washington, but a sad way to look at this.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, and what they say is, ``While we appreciate efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534,'' meaning their members lobbied, I assume, Speaker Pelosi, ``NAM members continue to oppose this bill, as it would, in its current form,'' the form that we have here on the floor, ``drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in the availability of supply and adversity affect U.S. jobs.''

Once again, these are people that are job creators and people that are trying to hang on at a time of continued assault against the American worker by the Democratic Party. I think Mr. Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has it right. They are asking all Members of Congress, regardless of party, please oppose this job-killing, tax-increasing, consumer-higher- payments-at-the-pump bill that will result in more unemployment, higher costs.

National Association of

Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade

association representing small and large manufacturers in

every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to

oppose H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic

Resources Act of 2010.

Our nation continues to face a setback in energy security

and independence every day the drilling moratorium remains in

place. Thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry have

been lost. Companies that make and supply equipment,

services, engines, boats and materials such as steel and

concrete will soon feel massive economic consequences from

the moratorium.

Manufacturers believe it is critically important to

understand the causes of the Gulf of Mexico accident and its

long-term environmental impacts before enacting policies that

could make a serious problem much worse. While we appreciate

efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534, NAM

members continue to oppose the bill, as it would, in its

current form, drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in

the availability of supply and adversely affect U.S. jobs.

While there appears widespread agreement in the industry

and on Capitol Hill that the $75 million liability cap needs

to be updated, requiring an unattainable level of insurance

coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer

Continental Shelf is not the solution. By eliminating the

cap, H.R. 3534 would effectively retain the moratorium on

offshore drilling for all but a handful of the world's

largest international companies, forcing the vast majority of

American companies out of U.S. waters.

NAM members support energy policies that: (1) expand

domestic supplies in an environmentally safe way; and (2)

lower costs for U.S. consumers and for manufacturers, which

use one-third of our nation's energy. Access to competitively

priced energy helps U.S. companies compete in the global

economy and preserves high-paying jobs here at home.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes related to H.R. 3534, including votes on procedural

motions, may be considered for designation as Key

Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, and the best way to do it is not to tax and not to lose jobs. The creation of jobs is how you go about turning this economy around.

There was talk about Social Security earlier. It is the Democratic Party that is losing the jobs in this country, and that is why Social Security is in trouble. I think blaming someone else is a sad way to go through life.

Republicans, like the American people, would like some transparency and accountability. They should expect it. American people should expect it from their leaders, Members of Congress, and I don't think they're getting it. Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise $22 billion worth of new

taxes and over $300 billion in new, unrelated mandatory Federal spending.

I don't see a lot of people down here who are exactly worried about this on the Democratic side. I hear people who are down here talking about that it's the right thing to do, and that is what the Democratic majority will get credit for with this bill: more taxing, more spending, more rules and regulations, more unemployment, more high debt, pushing jobs offshore.

Mr. Speaker, reforms are needed to make America more competitive. The reforms should be about making sure that the drilling that takes place in the gulf or anywhere else is done safely and that we do follow best practices and rules and regulations. It should be done to encourage the government to work successfully with business, with industry, with the American worker, but that's not what we have here. What we have is a bill designed to kill the industry, to diminish its effectiveness, to increase costs for consumers, and to make pump costs and costs on natural gas more expensive.

I think that this economic plan by the Democratic majority they should get full credit for: higher taxes, more spending, assault on the free enterprise system, more unemployment, more debt, more things that are not working.

I'm going to give the Democratic majority credit today. Good for you. Now we know what that is. I know you're two-tenths through this agenda of killing 10 million American jobs, but you need to know this. You're going to get credit for this, and I hope the American people, in just a few days, when we go home, talk to their Members of Congress about changing that, because we ought to have a jobs bill on this floor to create jobs, not kill jobs.

The Republican Party is for the creation of jobs. We are for balancing the budget. We are for stopping the assault on employers, and we're for empowering the American people to have a brighter future, not one that simply empowers Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers are stunning. Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and yet 500,000 Federal Government jobs have been added in that period of time. The assault on the common man of this country is unrelenting by the Democratic majority.

For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and sense and restraint to this body, and I'm going to offer a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case are simple. The American people have got it. It is time for a real change.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, 2010 marks the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America, the largest youth organization in the United States. Since 1910, more than 111,000,000 youth have participated in Scouting programs focused on character development and leadership training.

This Sunday, July 25th, the Boy Scouts will kick-off their 100th Anniversary celebrations with a Grand Centennial Parade. Not since the very first Jamboree in 1937 has there been a Scout-specific parade in Washington, DC. There will be floats, marching bands, vintage vehicles, great entertainment, flags, fun and so much more. I am proud to join my father, former FBI Director Judge William S. Sessions, as a division marshal in this historic parade.

From July 26th to August 4th, the National Boy Scout Jamboree will be hosted at Fort A.P. Hill just south of Washington, DC. The Jamboree will host over 43,000 Scouts and adult leaders visiting from across the globe. This is the last year the Boy Scouts will celebrate its Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill having procured a new high-adventure base, The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve, near Beckley, West Virginia. This new base covers 10,600 acres and is located adjacent to 70,000 acres of National Park Service land, offering world-class outdoor opportunities when it opens in 2013.

On Tuesday, July 27th, the Postal Service will host the first day of sale for a new 44 cent commemorative stamp entitled ``Celebrate Scouting,'' made possible through bipartisan congressional support of over 300 Representatives and Senators. The stamp, unveiled in November of last year, will be dedicated by the Boy Scouts at the National Jamboree on Tuesday.

Additionally, the National Postal Museum will be hosting a Congressional Stamp Exhibit at the Rayburn House Office Building from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 28 and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 29/30. In collaboration with the Boy Scouts of America, I will be hosting an exhibit on the ``2010 Celebrate Scouting'' stamp.

As an additional token of celebration, I was proud to have introduced H.R. 5872, the Boy Scouts of American Centennial Commemorative Coin Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 8, 2008. In accordance with the legislation, the United States Mint produced 350,000 Silver Dollar coins in celebration of the Boy Scouts centennial anniversary. Each having a $10 surcharge equally matched by private funds, this bill raised $7 million for Scouts in hard to serve areas. After only 12 short weeks these coins sold out, a remarkable success for spreading the joys of Scouting.

This Friday, I am proud to host 11 troops made up of over 500 Scouts from the Dallas area to Washington, DC. I have the pleasure of meeting them on their historic journey to the Jamboree, showing them through the Capitol, and providing them insight into the government of our nation. In this historic year, I ask everyone to join in the celebration of this monumental occasion, and congratulate the Boy Scouts of America on their centennial anniversary.

I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me this time, my friend, Ms. Slaughter.

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

Madam Speaker, this will be the 34th time I have handled a rule on the House floor, and this will be the 34th time I have yet to handle one open rule this session of Congress. In fact, over the 130-plus rules this Congress, we have not yet debated an open rule. I guess I could add the word yet, but I would presume that moving forward during this session of Congress I don't think we expect to. What a shame, Madam Speaker.

I don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or shutting down Members of Congress who are elected by their colleagues and peers back home to come and represent them, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I think it's wrong. Yet today here we are again with my handling of the 34th time this session a closed rule.

I would once again question this agenda. I would question the agenda of the majority party, the Democratic Party, that we already know is about taxing, spending, and more rules and regulations, and more debt to this great Nation. But I think that it's important to look at how bad process delivers a bad outcome. And today that's exactly what we're looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it is.

But I am going to use my time also to talk about some Republican ideas. One thing I have the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, is to call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner. We've over the weeks heard about YouCut.

YouCut is a Republican idea that's an online idea. It's a voting tool, a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick what they consider to be wasteful government spending, something which this Congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how we would cut and make this government more efficient. Over a million Americans have voted this week alone.

This week's YouCut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first- class seats on Amtrak's long-distance routes. This initiative would yield $1.2 billion in savings over 10 years. And these people who have voted are hardworking Americans who are paying attention to what we're doing here in Washington. They don't want to have their tax dollars subsidize first-class travel on Amtrak.

I have long advocated for reforming Amtrak, especially the long- distance routes. These routes lose money year after year after year. They continue to receive money from the Federal Government, and Amtrak has no incentive to improve their operations as long as Uncle, that's Uncle Sam, is willing to pay.

This Congress I have introduced H.R. 5377, a bill that would require Amtrak to eliminate service on long-distance routes whose total direct costs are more than twice the revenue. That is, where the costs are more than twice the revenue that comes in, the Federal Government should not be paying for that. The taxpayers should no longer be footing the bill for Amtrak's inefficiencies. And today you're going to have a chance to hear from the Republicans about how we think we ought to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer.

Additionally, we're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the Federal deficit. That's why we're talking about YouCut today.

We're talking about YouCut today because the bill we're getting ready to pass here in just a few minutes is not even paid for. And our friends in the majority keep talking about, oh, we pay for things. We make the tough decisions. Well, another day in Washington where another tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this House, and the agenda of taxing and spending and more debt and long-term destruction of the free enterprise system is exactly what's on the floor of the House today with this bill.

Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected.

Since 2006, the Government Accountability Office has included the NFIP on its list of high-risk government programs in need of comprehensive reform. And here today we're empowering a program that's on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business, taking business from the free enterprise system.

Additionally, the Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, known as PCI, estimates that the legislation will eliminate 41,775 private-sector jobs so that Uncle Sam and the government can add jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is the hallmark of this Democrat majority. It is to empower the government against the free enterprise system. We saw this in May numbers, when the May numbers came out, 431,000 net new jobs. And our friends in the Democrats come down every day and say, Look at us, look at all these jobs we're creating. Yeah, 431,000 jobs in May, but of that figure 400,000 were government jobs. They were census jobs, they were temporary

jobs, and you're trying to fool this country. In Texas, if we were in the Texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising. It should be deceptive advertising in Washington and be against the law.

With an unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and a loss of over 3 million jobs since January of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more. That's 41,775 jobs is the estimate. By increasing the taxpayers' exposure also, this program is $22.1 billion in premiums that could be taken out of our economy. But it doesn't stop there. More than $20 billion of investment in mutual, municipal, State, and local bonds will completely dry up. A line of business that the free enterprise system handled that the government did not need to. And government at all levels, State, Federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue from the free enterprise system.

During the last Congress, the Senate rejected this proposal by a vote of 74 to 19. Even the administration, shockingly, even the administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the NFIP, citing concerns that it would threaten the long-term viability of the program. Exactly right. It's called bankruptcy. Never forget the taxpayer is there, so it probably won't go bankrupt.

With the current Federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the government crisis, and record unemployment, why would the majority party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse? Or would this simply be to help the U.S. Treasury? I don't know. But either way it's government jobs. And I guess we should be careful and not complain too much, because I guess Uncle Sam needs the help.

Madam Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans want pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and investment and that would keep Americans competitive with the world. Instead, today we find 41,000 more jobs that will dry up in the free enterprise system, jobs back home.

This legislation further diminishes not only these jobs but adds billions of dollars to our national debt. That is the hallmark of this administration and this Congress: more taxing, more spending, more taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to the government, and perhaps worst of all, a debt we may never, ever pay for.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. I can't do it today. Today's another vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia, the minority whip, the favorite son from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) makes a great point, and we can today on the floor of this House of Representatives add to this bill with its own merits by saying let's also, as we're adding billions of dollars, at least simplify government and cut a billion off of what it does. It makes sense to me, and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his great YouCut suggestion.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois, Pete Roskam.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she has any further speakers.

I wanted to ask the gentlewoman if she had additional speakers. I received a good answer. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentlewoman.

I have about 45 or 50 more speakers, and I will consume my time.

I have a number of speakers. We did not receive enough time in this rule to be able to provide enough time for our speakers. It's a very important topic for us, and I understand that you don't have any speakers, but we've got a bunch. So, yes, ma'am, I do intend to use my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Speaker, you know, it sounds like the gentlewoman from West Virginia gave us a good way to think of things, and that is, too much of a good thing may not be good.

What this rail service is about, Amtrak, I believe, is a pretty good idea, but too much of a good thing, where you can't properly manage it or pay for it, where it gets larger than what the mission statement is, is a bad problem. And, you know, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are on the floor of the House today and we're called to Washington every week and we can handle that, but day after day after day after day after day after day after day we handle small ideas and little issues.

Today, we're handling an issue that the gentleman from Mississippi deeply believes in and, in fact, he will have an opportunity not only to have his ideas on the floor but he will get a vote on those ideas. Republicans have now, in our fourth year, been saying to this Speaker and this majority leader and this Democratic majority that we believe that this body is entitled to have an agenda that the majority wants.

But we believe it should be balanced. We believe it should include some tough decision-making, not just more spending, not just pet projects, but, rather, things which will empower people back home to have confidence in what we are doing here in Washington. And Republicans have, once again today, through YouCut, through the leadership of our minority whip, Eric Cantor, presented ideas on this floor and every single Member will have an opportunity to vote on that.

Republicans believe that we should have to make tough decisions. Republicans believe that you ought to come and read the bill. Republicans believe that that Rules Committee that's up there, if you say your agenda is going to be open and honest, that you ought to mean it. Republicans believe that there ought to be an opportunity for Members to come and have their ideas heard.

We are taking seriously what we think is a duty and an obligation to come and talk about how we can make our jobs that we do more serious by streamlining, providing feedback to Federal money that's being spent. It's an incredible amount of money that not only is being spent out of this town but way too little, if any, is about reforming and making the government more efficient. We think that that's what we should be about.

We think that we should be about providing ideas, giving money to this government, but with the expectation of performance that would allow streamlining and efficiencies and not giving away services at less than what their real cost is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

By the way, the gentleman from Mississippi is a very dear friend of mine with whom I engage on a regular basis. I just want the gentleman to know that while I know that under Speaker Pelosi we don't have any process with appropriations to strike or amend any appropriations bills, for 12 years I brought an Amtrak cut bill to this floor. So I will be providing that information, and I look forward to the gentleman joining me as soon as we get a Republican majority that will allow that to take place on the floor of this House, an open process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York for not only this time but getting through this thing.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, Republicans, and at least one Democrat, have a lot to talk about. I wish we had more time today. Republicans would have liked a lot more time to make sure that we could talk about not only this bill, but the implications that are on the floor.

Republicans continue to offer, Madam Speaker, commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, a spending spree that's now in its fourth year by this Democrat majority. We, like the American people, would like transparency and accountability and common sense, creation of jobs, not the extension of unemployment benefits that are not paid for.

We believe in people having jobs, and if this majority were serious and if this administration were serious, they would do the things that work rather than the things that don't work. They are doing things that don't work, Madam Speaker, and that is what this Democrat majority will be held accountable for. It's really a sad thing to hear person after person who has lost his job, and people whom I know, and to see the malaise this country is in.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The legislation before us today brings more uncertainty to the long-term solvency of the NFIP. This legislation risks more American jobs and adds more to our State, local, and Federal deficits. It is true, as the gentleman spoke of, that States take this on. It is a State's responsibility, not the Federal Government's, but that is part of what this agenda is all about. For this reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives talking about taxing and spending, jobs, and the needs of this great Nation. Yet today we will begin debating a bill which will further tax and cause fees of $18 billion for consumers in the new banking bill, a banking bill that will collapse what is $1 trillion worth of equity and other arrangements that can be made that today fund American businesses and keep small businesses alive.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that we change the direction that we're heading. Taxing and spending is something that the American people do not want or need for their future. The unemployment rate still stays near 10 percent. And since taking office in 2007, our Democrat friends have set a record for deficits, spending, and unemployment. The American people know this, and they are speaking out.

I encourage Americans to visit the Web site www.AmericaSpeakingOut .com. ``America Speaking Out'' is an opportunity for Americans to have a say in their government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we are discussing today allows for martial law authority for any bill pertaining to the extenders package as well as what is called the Dodd-Frank bill, which is a 2,300-page government takeover of the financial sector.

Mr. Speaker, this is as much about saving the financial industry as the health care bill was about health care, and it's as much about jobs as the jobs bill supposedly was. It was about the diminishment of jobs, and this is about the diminishment of the financial sector of this country.

Additionally, this rule gives suspension authority through the end of the week for the fifth straight legislative week. Mr. Speaker, it seems like every time I come to the House floor that I point out that my Democratic colleagues are using an unprecedented restrictive and closed process. I think the American people want and need transparency, accountability, and solutions.

I remember just a few short years ago when our Speaker said that she would run a House that was the most honest, open, and ethical Congress. I have yet to see evidence of that these last few years. As a matter of fact, week after week after week I see closed rules, unprecedented shenanigans related to bringing legislation to the floor, and a closed process. I know where it is. Democrats left it out on the campaign trail. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness of this promise has been fulfilled the past few years by an unprecedented amount of restrictive rules.

Since this Congress has managed to rack up a record $1.4 trillion deficit since 2009, more than three times the size of the deficit in 2008, and are on target to once again hit a $1.3 trillion deficit again this year, my Republican colleagues and I are going to use this time to talk about excessive borrowing, excessive spending, and excessive taxation that seems to be the Democrat majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to address some of this wasteful government spending that's happening here in Washington, Republicans created something called YouCut. This is an online voting tool for Americans to vote on what wasteful government spending programs they would review, and they can make the decision on what to eliminate.

Today, I have the opportunity to call for a vote on the previous question for this week's YouCut winner, which, of course, I am proud to cosponsor. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have voted this week alone.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are looking for people who can come to Washington, D.C., to make tough choices, and this Democrat majority is not even bringing a budget to the floor of the House of Representatives for the 2011 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I've worked in business, small business, been around lots of people who, every single organization I've ever been a part of, started their year with a budget. I'm shocked and dismayed that this Democrat majority will not bring a budget to the floor, so Republicans will spend their time talking about how we believe we can better the circumstance we're in, talking about YouCut and the American people being engaged in helping to move this country forward.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to eliminate this wasteful spending by voting against the rule and previous question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia, the favorite son (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, to balance out this argument just a little bit, I know we have those that want to characterize what Republicans stand for, but I would like to also address the statements that have been made here on the floor and balance out the attacks against Republicans.

The gentleman Mr. Hoyer on June 22 said this in regards to what our leader Mr. Boehner said, and I quote: ``On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan; more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits . . . ''

Mr. Speaker, you know, just the unrelenting liberal attacks on this country that have diminished this country's

ability to have a free enterprise system have brought us higher taxes, incredible debt, and a future that diminishes our ability for our children and grandchildren.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas, Congresswoman Jenkins.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to one of the newest Members of this body, the gentleman from Hawaii, Charles Djou.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Speaker, in order to allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) time to rebut, I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

Madam, Speaker, we're sitting here arguing on the floor about who gets credit for what. I think we ought to give credit. We ought to give credit to the Democrats for taxing, spending, record unemployment, higher debt. And what we're talking about today, this bill, the financial services sector of this country will not be healthy if we do not turn around our economy. And that too, Madam Speaker, is pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

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

I think it's pretty obvious that Republicans today have come down and debated the substance of this rule and the bill. The rule, as it relates to the conference report, is straightforward.

It puts in order on the floor of the House of Representatives today a bill which will be a monstrous spending bill for financial institutions, $18 billion that will be passed on to consumers. It's all done for bigger government. This bill empowers the Federal Government not only to get larger, but it gives them raw power. It gives them the opportunity to be the decision-maker in literally all parts of financial services. I think that's a mistake. I think that the balances and the opportunities that we had had as we have spoken in the last few years, we should aim for safety and soundness, not for overbearing government rules and regulations.

This bill, once again, is as much about the financial services industry as the health care bill was about health care. It's about diminishing the free enterprise system. It's about diminishing people who really should take the role and the responsibility for that which they do. And it's about creating a larger government that will encroach upon every single one of us and ultimately crush us. The Republican Party disagrees with this bill because we think that the time should be spent on this floor to encourage job creation, not to diminish job creation. And that's what this bill does today also: it diminishes job creation. Taxing, spending, bigger government. Of course, I guess it depends whether you are working for the government; you want the government to win or the free enterprise system.

We've looked at the numbers over the last 4 years since Speaker Pelosi's come into office, and we know what that agenda is--taxing, spending, more debt, bigger government, rules, regulations and using every single excuse they can to say, Well, you guys could have done this when you were in. Well, we don't want to do that. We don't want to do this. We don't want the taxing. We don't want the spending. To say that we could have done this, that now we're opposed to it, that's crazy. We don't like this.

We want to be about the free enterprise system, job creation, and the opportunity for people back home to have confidence in this body. We're at the lowest level ever that people have confidence in this body. And no wonder. Taxing, spending, rules, regulations, blaming things on former Presidents. My gosh, grow up. Madam Speaker, no wonder the American people are worried about our country, because the Mickey Mouse still goes on and is going on even today.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, my friend, for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill.

Today, we are considering a 2,300-page Federal takeover of the financial services industry. This happened in health care. It's now happening in financial services. The bill before us today is just one more piece of the Democrat majority's agenda to Federalize more of the private sector of this country. I hear that as I travel in my district. Madam Speaker, while it's important to provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace and to minimize the chance of another financial crisis, I oppose this bill.

I oppose this bill, and the underlying legislation holds many far- reaching consequences for the American economy and prohibits the ability of business, small and large, to create jobs and spur economic growth. Obviously, this bill, because it's done by the Democrat majority, will be 2,300 pages; obviously, because this bill is done by the Democrat majority, it will involve new Big Government plans, programs; and, obviously, because it's the Democrat majority, it will involve more taxes, fees, and in fact it's $18 billion worth of new spending through these fees and taxes. In addition to making bailouts permanent, which this bill does do, failing to address the root cause of the crisis and rewarding failed regulators, this Democratic solution makes it even more difficult for consumers to access credit and for businesses to comply with overburdensome regulations.

Just a few minutes ago, we heard the story about how Republicans want to do nothing. Republicans would do nothing because they're opposed to rules and regulations in the marketplace. That's not true. We already have enough rules and regulations in the marketplace. And I do agree there's some things in here which do add to the safety and soundness features. But in the overall total, it's a bad deal. It's a bad deal for consumers, it's a bad deal for this country, and it's certainly a bad deal for anyone that wants to turn the corner on growing jobs in America.

In a letter from the Independent Bankers Association of Texas, my home State, while referencing the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created in the bill, it states, ``this agency will have broad powers to write rules on all bank products and services, which we believe will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship on longstanding products that have been responsibly offered by community financial institutions. This will result in more cost and confusion to bank customers and stifle lending and funding in community banks.''

Community banks represent the lifeblood of Texas. I know this because I know a number of the banks and the people not only who lend with them but the people who rely on them day by day. I'm one of those persons. They're worried about what is happening here in Washington. Once again, they were given a reason to have fear of what has happened over the weekend in this bill becoming even closer to law.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of Financial Research, two brand new Federal agencies created in this bill--once again, two brand new Federal agencies created in this bill--will give unelected bureaucrats unprecedented power to track financial activities without citizens' approval. And these are not the only new regulatory components of the bill. This legislation allows for 355 new rulemakings, 47 studies, and 74 reports, and potentially dozens more as implementation begins. But what should we expect from this Democratic Congress?

The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder. It should be there to help our economy to sustain and gain back economic growth. And, of course, gain back private-sector job creation--not government jobs. This legislation, of course, does the opposite. It takes a one-size-fits-all approach to governing, undermining U.S. economic competitiveness and private-sector growth. This Democrat solution will only increase government intervention in the financial markets. It will ration credit. It will limit consumer choice. And, perhaps worst of all, it will continue to kill jobs. I'm sorry; private-sector jobs. I need to get that right. We're all for government jobs when it's a Democratic bill, but when it comes to free-enterprise system jobs, we want to kill those things. This is the hallmark of the Democratic Party, whose party--and I know this, this is just part of it--but the three largest political items of the Democrat majority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi: To net lose 10 million American jobs through cap- and-trade, through card check, and through health care. Once again, we should have included that in that list--jobs that are killed in the free enterprise system by this Democrat majority.

Madam Speaker, the motives are clear. My Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a further government takeover of the free enterprise system while paving the road to diminish the private sector. This is their way of making sure that they use a crisis or a perception of a crisis to get what they want. I get it, and so do people back home. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party and my colleagues in the Republican Party are opposed to this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our next speaker is a young gentleman from Texas who has a clear voice and a sound footing not only of economic principles but he also speaks for our party.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who was speaking that we know what happened, and it's called pin-the-tail-on- the-donkey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), from the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce), from the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), from the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the same people who are down here who are arguing for us to give them the responsibility and authority and who are espousing how balanced their bill is are the same people who are bankrupting this country. They don't even apply their own logic and common sense to what they pass in this House. They talk about all of this balance and responsibility and about how they are worried about the middle class. Yet they are bankrupting this country. Yet they are causing the largest unemployment that we have had in the modern era. They are not even talking about what they have done to create that circumstance, and they are trying to point the finger at somebody else. I think that that is irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is important to provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace, but our constituents are also concerned about much, much more. They are concerned about jobs, they are concerned about the economy, and they are concerned about the tremendous debt this Nation has taken on.

Week after week we come to the House floor to debate bills and to talk about the agenda that the Democratic majority wants to have on the floor, and it would be true to say that Republicans oppose that agenda, because it is about taxing, it is about spending, it is about more debt, it is about bigger government, and it is about the diminishment of free enterprise system jobs. It is about the things that the American people have said they do not have confidence in this body solving.

Whether it is cap-and-trade, health care, or government takeover of the financial sector, my friends in the majority are ready every single week to stick it to the free enterprise system. My friends the Democrats seem more interested in accomplishing their political agenda than trying to help the American people.

Once again, today, we have a job loss bill on the floor. That is really what we should call this--more big government, fewer private sector jobs, $18 billion in fees that will have to be paid by the banks that will be passed on to consumers, just on and on and on.

Every Member of this body has a chance to say no to more spending, more big government, more rules and regulations, and somehow to show the American people that they can make tough choices and cut spending.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation. And I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado and his engagement with me today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed rollcall No. 401, passage of H.R. 5623, the Homebuyers Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to discuss H. Con. Res. 284, legislation to recognize the work and importance of special education teachers in America.

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that children with disabilities have the right to the same quality public school education as their nondisabled peers. To fulfill this promise, in 1975 the United States Congress passed the Education of all Handicapped Children Act (EHA), which we now know as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, guaranteeing students with disabilities the right to a quality and appropriate public education.

It has been almost 40 years that children with special needs were granted the right and opportunity to obtain an education equal to every other child's in our country.

IDEA provides these individuals the opportunity to improve their quality of life through education while translating that to job skills in the real world.

Speaking as the parent of a child with special needs, I will always be grateful and indebted to the individuals we are honoring in today's resolution. They have dedicated their lives to improving the education of those students who begin with an intellectual or physical disadvantage than their peers.

According to the Department of Education approximately 6,600,000 children receive special education services; this is about 13 percent of our Pre-K, Elementary & Secondary student population in the United States combined.

In our school systems there are roughly 370,000 highly qualified special education teachers who wake up every day ready to educate children with special needs, while extending a hand to support the parents of these students during difficult times.

Distinct from the rest of their colleagues in the teaching profession, special education teachers work with students who have a range of disabilities that can consist of specific learning disabilities, physical impairments, speech or language impairments, autism, and other health and mental impairments.

While learning to engage and attend to every individual student's needs, special education teachers must also interact and coordinate with a child's parents or legal guardians, social workers, school psychologists, occupational and physical therapists, and school administrators, as well as other educators to provide the best quality education for their students.

In addition, these educators must produce innovative methods to maximize the learning capacity of each student, to make learning as easy as possible.

Recently I received a letter from a special education teacher in Texas,

Her name is Sunni McAsey and it reads . . .

``I pick up my students from the bus stop 15 minutes before other teachers have students arrive in their classrooms. I am responsible for these students from the minute they arrive on campus until the minute they leave. Anything that happens with these kids is my sole responsibility. My students' abilities range from the intellectual capacity of a third grader to that of a 9 month old, all in one classroom, and each lesson that I create must be meaningful to every child in the room. My relationship with each child's parents is very close and I know more about each child than any teacher who teaches non-disabled students alone. I interact daily with parents who have accepted the cards dealt to them and are supportive of my work, but I have parents who are still grieving over their child's disability. My job includes so much more than most people are aware. I am a teacher, a nurse, a counselor, a parent, a disciplinarian, and everything else for these kids 8 hours a day. Why do I do it, you wonder? Because I truly love these kids. Even the slightest little gain is a big deal that we celebrate! Every gain is worth it in these kids' lives as well as their parents . . . Sincerely a teacher who wants to make a difference''

Mr. Speaker, teachers like Sunni McAsey deserve to be recognized for their hard work and dedication to educating our youth.

This resolution is the first of its kind in Congress to recognize the dedication and hard work that these educators put into their jobs, day in and day out.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of these teachers and their everyday work.

We are approaching almost 40 years in which children with special needs were given the right to obtain the same quality education as their non-disabled peers, and it's time we honored those providing that education.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution that recognizes the work and importance of special education teachers in America.