John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I apologize for the short time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CARTER. I don't know how much time is left, but I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are interesting times we live in, and as we sit here this evening, we have a lot of things that are kind of up in the air about what's going to happen to our country and about what's going to happen to our ability to fund the government for the rest of our time. Unfortunately, we don't have answers to that question. I wish we did, but we don't. Yet there are some things that are happening that we ought to talk about because the American people are concerned about what's going on. In some ways, they're confused. As we sit here today, we are looking at the possibility on Friday night, at midnight, of there being no more appropriated funds for the operation of the government. Some people call that shutting down the government, but that's the real term. We have no appropriated funds that are available for the operation of the government. There's already the blame game going on up here. This blame game is confusing to most Americans, so I think it's kind of important that we start off by trying to explain what's going on up here. I'm going to give you a quick synopsis of what I think has gone on recently. Let's start off with the fact that the Republicans fully funded the troops and the rest of the Federal Government through FY 2011, which would be the 1st of October of this year, with H.R. 1 in March. The Democrats refused that submission. The Republicans are ready again this week with a submission, that we will do today, to fully fund our troops through FY 2011, and we're ready to come back next week to debate the rest of the budget. It seems we're hearing a message that the Democrats will refuse. The House and Senate Republicans have a bill, H.R. 1297, that simply guarantees that our troops get their pay without any budget agreement. So far, the Democrats have refused. That's a bill that was put together by Congressman Louie Gohmert and Congressman Jack Kingston. So I guess we can say that--or I would at least offer this as a submission--it seems that the Democrats want to hold our fighting men and women's pay hostage so that they can continue their runaway Federal spending, because, really, the debate here in this House today and in the Senate, which is down the way from us, is: Are we going to continue to spend like drunken sailors, as usual, or are we going to take a hard look at what this government is doing, and are we going to turn this ship of state to a ship of state that is moving in the direction of saving the American people from this runaway spending? The President has submitted to us a budget proposal which carries in it almost $1.5 trillion of deficit spending. What this House is trying to do is to change the mood and the attitude of where this Congress sits on the issue of spending, and it's time for us to take a long, hard look. I would argue, if people could have taken the time and watched the debate when we sent our first submission over to the Senate, which was H.R. 1, they would have seen an extensive debate that went on for hours and hours and hours on the floor of this House, with both sides participating, as to what we would and would not submit in the way of cutting certain amounts of spending, and there were multiple, multiple votes. This was after this same idea had been vetted in other forms, like our committee system. And yet when it was sent to the Senate it was dead on arrival, and the only thing they could offer as an alternative to the submission we gave them was $6 billion worth of cuts, which they even voted down. They didn't even pass that. They weren't even willing to take their meager little $6 billion versus our $60-plus billion that we proposed to them. And everybody says, Where is the give-and-take? Why don't you work together, Congress? What's wrong with you people? Well, when one side does a whole bunch of work, sends it over to the other side, they say they don't like it, they reject it, and we wait and we wait and we wait and we wait for them to submit something back so we can discuss it, well, we've been waiting a long time now and we still haven't gotten it back. And we've gone through two short-term CRs to give them the opportunity to go vote on some things in the Senate. I know they're slow. I mean, we all know they're slow, but we don't even see the Democrat majority in the Senate even trying to bring things to the floor for a vote on giving us an idea where they would stand on cutting spending. Now, they love to do press releases out of smoke-filled rooms and come back from White House meetings with the President and tell us, Oh, we've got this deal--which our side certainly didn't agree to. And actually doing this so-called ``democracy'' inside of the press instead of doing it by sitting down across the table or passing a bill that we can look at and examine and see if we can't work out that bill and maybe get the comfort to do something under normal course of business here has not been available. Senator Reid just says, Dead on arrival. Dead on arrival. Keep trying. Dead on arrival. And what that requires is for the House Members to--first off, what they're really looking for us to do is to give up our principles because of threats of this government closing down. I want to make it very clear, I have heard this ever since this debate started. The leadership of the Republicans in the House of Representatives has stated consistently, every time John Boehner steps up to the microphone, we do not want to shut down the government. And I will tell you, if people are listening with a tight ear, they will find out that any conversation about shutting down the government has always originated from the other side of the aisle where the Democrats tell us, Watch out, they're going to shut down the government. Watch out, they're going to shut down the government. And we're saying, No, we're not. We're trying to get you to respond to us and let us know what you think is the right thing for us to do to try to do something about this overwhelming debt, this overwhelming deficit, this gigantic leap in the debt that we're going to face in the future. Just look at this chart. And you've seen it before. It's been here. I've had it here twice. Here's 2010. So 2011 is about right there. Look at 2051. Look, 300 percent plus. And right now we are bouncing around 100 percent here. That was during the Second World War, and this is where we've been ever since the Second World War. But all of a sudden, with the projections that President Obama has given us as to what he perceives is the right path for America, bam, that red line goes up and that red block comes there, and that's what our children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with. And we honestly believe that that takes this country and changes the very nature of what makes America great because it wipes out any opportunity that possibly our children and our grandchildren can look forward to when they are overwhelmed with debt. Have you ever heard the debate that goes on among college parents and among college students when they graduate from college these days and they're faced with $100,000 or $200,000 worth of debt to pay for these expensive college educations we've got out there; and they've borrowed all the money and how they are overwhelmed with debt to the point where they look at the salaries that are being offered them and they say, Holy cow. If this is what my revenues are going to be, my income is going to be, I will never pay off this student loan. I know that I heard it from hundreds of kids because I used to teach Sunday school at that age. And they came back from college saying, I can't believe I've got this much debt to pay off before I even start making a living. Well, that's meager compared to what this Congress, if we don't change the way we do business, is going to do to our children and our grandchildren. College debt is going to look like a walk in the park compared to that kind of accelerated debt that's going to be placed on every human being that calls themselves an American. This is frightening. It's more frightening when you think what this Congress really needs to be about--and is about over here on our side, and I would hope on the other side, too--is finding jobs for the American people. Now, what do the job creators think when they see this? People who run businesses, small businesses or large, they look at the projected future of the economy and they make decisions as to why they hire people for very simple reasons. You hire someone to advance your business. You don't hire them because you're a nice guy. You don't hire them because somebody gives you an incentive to hire them. You hire them because ultimately they are going to improve your productivity or your bottom line. That's why labor is infused into anything that people do. Most people who start out with their small business, it's all them and maybe their family. And then when they hire that first employee, they don't hire them just because they like that kid across the street. They hire them because that first employee is going to make their business do better. Now, if they're looking at the accumulated debt being put upon them by this government and they look at what projected debt they have to deal with, what they have to handle, where they think their revenues are going to be, what solutions there are going to be for this debt in the way of tax increases, they have to say, Whoa. Until somebody gets a handle on this stuff, we're looking at a world that I'm not sure I want to hire anybody else in. This is not rocket science, this is very simple. You hire to prosper. If you're afraid prosperity is not going to be a result of the hiring, you don't hire. I would argue--and I think it's an argument that's made by many, many economists and many, many editorial writers--that the fear of the unknown and the known that you think you see by the way the government is proceeding keeps a lot of people from hiring other folks. I think that's common sense. I think anybody that knows anything about business can realize that. So this looms over everybody. I saw a cartoon up here in Washington. Many of you may have seen it. It was a gigantic elephant's behind sitting on a scale, and it had written across the back of it, ``National Debt.'' And then on the very top of the backside of that elephant was a Band-Aid about the size that would wrap around my little finger stuck on there, and it had an arrow right there that said, ``Spending Cuts.'' The reality is what the Republicans have proposed in terms of spending cuts as they relate to the gigantic mess that we're in is just that teeny, weensy little Band-Aid. And yet, this very meager proposal of changing the way we spend money has been rejected out of hand by the Harry Reid Democrats over in the Senate and by our colleagues in the House. And it is on every submission that we've made, on every attempt we've made to negotiate, on every time we have said, so and so, how about you all getting together and come up with an alternative? And it's just, no, you're dead on arrival. We'll talk at the White House behind closed doors or we'll talk in smoke-filled rooms or whatever-- smoke-filled rooms probably dates me a little bit, but there are still some smokers around here. Okay. Now, where are we tonight? I think where we are tonight, I am optimistic about where we are tonight. And the world may be sitting out there pessimistic, but I'm optimistic because, first and foremost, I honestly believe that we're going to do everything at least in our power to try to get us to come up with a solution for this small spending cut bill of $60-plus billion that we put forward, which, compared to that elephant's behind, is nothing. And we're going to get it done before we run out of time and we run out of appropriations and the government starts to wind down. But I'm more optimistic than that, because I am very optimistic that the fact that Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee of this House have put forward a proposal that is like you ought to have the Hallelujah Chorus in the background when they introduced it, singing ``Hallelujah.'' Because it was finally a budget that wasn't the same old budget--how can we jack every spending level up, and how can we figure out a way to raise some taxes to make that work? No. It's a budget that says this budget is going to be about prosperity and preserving the America we love for our generations to come. If that's not something as we come up on this deadline--which should make us nervous, and it makes me nervous. But the big picture is our Budget Committee has put a revolutionary budget out for discussion. And that budget is worth joy on behalf of the American people, because what it does is it says to the people around us that there are some good ideas we ought to try. I'm joined with many of my colleagues here today, and I want to give them all an opportunity to talk. So let me finish up at least this short part of talking here and let some other folks talk. Today where we are is a very simple place. Are we going to fund our Department of Defense and make sure our troops get paid or are we going to be so--with miniscule cuts and then continue this debate so we could probably try to get a resolution next week, or are we going to reject out of hand--as now Harry Reid is making public statements to say and the President, in Atlanta, supposedly said he would veto this proposal--reject out of hand to say we want our troops to suffer and we don't care whether they're getting shot at. We don't care. We're ready to let them get shot at and do without pay, men and women who have been risking their lives for over 10 years so that we can stand in this Chamber and talk. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves to even consider not doing something. All of us ought to be wanting to do something to make sure that those folks get their paychecks so their spouses and children back home don't suffer while they suffer the possibility of being killed or maimed on our behalf. And that's what this vote, this day and tomorrow, is all about. The deadline is Friday night at midnight. We're asking our Senators to reconsider rejecting out of hand what we are sending over and consider it in light of that momma back home with a child on her hip, telling the creditors, We have no money to pay you. And I'm sorry my husband can't talk to you. He's over in Afghanistan, in the mountains, trying to stay alive. Or he's flying missions into Libya, trying to stay alive. So I think we really need to know that's where we are in time, and the other is stuff we're going to be talking about. Whoever would like to step up, grab the microphone, and let's talk. My friend from Virginia, step up. Tell us what you've got to say.

Mr. CARTER. And I thank you very much for those comments. I want to point out that I have here the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. Mr. Gohmert is the cosponsor of this, along with Jack Kingston. I was worried about Louie. He was here a minute ago. He left. I am going to recognize Kristi Noem to discuss with me, and I will yield whatever time she needs, and then we will get Mr. Gohmert for a minute and hear what he has to say.

Mr. CARTER. Yes.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, Congressman Silvestre Reyes and I would like to take this opportunity to honor General George W. Casey, Jr., the 36th Chief of Staff of the United States Army, for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our Nation. As cochairs of the House Army Caucus, Congressman Reyes and I have had the privilege of working with General Casey as he led our Army through a difficult period of transformation, simultaneously rebalancing and modernizing the Army while our Nation was engaged in two wars. After 40 years of distinguished service, General Casey will retire from active military duty in June of 2011. General Casey is the epitome of the consummate professional, exemplifying the special qualities exhibited by all transformational military leaders: a strong sense of duty, honor, courage, and love of country. General Casey continued the tradition of military service to his country that was started by his father, Major General George W. Casey, Sr., commander of the First Cavalry Division, who died in a helicopter crash on July 7, 1970, in Vietnam. That same year, General Casey was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry from Georgetown University's Army Reserve Officers Training Corps. He went on to excel in a variety of command and staff assignments, including notable participation in Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. He commanded the First Armored Division in 1999 to 2001, served as the director of Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) of the Joint Staff in 2001, and director of the Joint Staff in 2003. Following these Joint Staff assignments, General Casey served as the 30th Vice Chief of Staff for the Army until June 2004. From 2004 until 2007, General Casey commanded the Multinational Force Iraq, a coalition of 32 countries, where he oversaw the transition of three separate Iraqi Governments. He set the conditions for transition to Iraqi-led security, which, in turn, enabled the successful drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq. He was a powerful influence for democratic change in Iraq, steadily improving the security and political environment in the country so that, in 2005, Iraq was able to conduct open and transparent national elections. On April 10, 2007, General Casey became the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Since assuming this position, General Casey's leadership and commitment have contributed immeasurably to ensuring America's Army remains the preeminent military force in the world. As the Army's Chief of Staff, General Casey has provided the strategic leadership and vision to complete the most comprehensive transformation of the Army since World War II, building versatile and modular units and improving the capabilities of soldiers to conduct full-spectrum operations. General Casey has proven himself a tremendous wartime leader, demonstrating unselfish devotion to our Nation and to the soldiers he leads. Responsible for the organization, training, readiness, mobilization, and deployment of Army forces, he has worked tirelessly to successfully restore balance to a force stretched and stressed by the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Above all, General Casey has never wavered from his personal commitment to support the soldiers and families who are the heart and soul of the United States Army. He implemented the Army Family Covenant and the Army Community Covenant to expand and improve services and raise awareness about the unique challenges military families face. Madam Speaker, during times of uncertainty and crisis, our Nation has been fortunate to have exceptional men and women who step forward and calmly lead. Such a man is General George W. Casey, Jr. He has been exemplary in his selfless service for our country through war, peace, and personal trial. It is with profound admiration and deep respect that we pay tribute to General George W. Casey, Jr., for all he has done for the United States Army and this country. We thank General Casey, his wife, Sheila, and his two sons, Sean and Ryan, for their dedication and sacrifice on behalf of our soldiers, our Army, and our Nation. As a personal aside, several years ago, I was on a plane that was grounded in Germany coming back from a codel in the Middle East, and here comes the Commander in Chief of the Army jogging up to the airfield just to say hello to the congressional delegation. He is a great man.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I like king's X. I thank you, Steve King. You're a good friend for coming down here and joining me. I have gone over what I have to say here tonight. I just want to finish up by saying nobody is against doing the right thing. I'm against people who are creating regulations for the sake of regulations and damaging the people who are the job creators in this country. I'm for protecting the environment, but if you're belching out pollutants in China because you moved out of the United States because of onerous regulations and you weren't belching out those pollutants in America because we had a good Clean Air Act in place before you wrote the bad regulations, then you're not helping the environment at all by sending that to an unregulated place in China or India. So let's get real. Let's try to set up an environment in this Nation that creates jobs so Americans can go back to work. It's all about going back to work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, once again we are going to talk about the fact that the regulators are kind of like the fox watching the henhouse. They just overreach everywhere. And we just heard an example of that actually. Mr. Austin Scott was just up here talking about what is going on with this pesticide. We will talk a little bit about that today. I have been trying for the last 6 or 8, I guess, months now to talk about some of the regulations that are being imposed upon people. You see these regulations and you see how onerous they are on both large and small businesses, and then we sit around and wonder why we're teetering around 9 percent unemployment in this country. It's because not only do folks have to wonder about are we going to raise taxes. Folks have to wonder about are we going to spend ourselves into the poor house. Folks have to wonder about a $1.65 trillion deficit this year. They worry about all those things. They worry about how their children and grandchildren are going to pay off this massive accumulation of debt in this country that is coming down as a result of the policies of the last Congress, the Democrat-led Congress, and the Obama administration, and then you take that and you take on top of that the executive branch's regulations that they are putting on people, many of which are so onerous and make so little sense that, quite honestly, you wonder what's going on. We've got a lot of things that have been going on, and we've got some tools that we're using to get rid of those things. And a tool that I have been talking about is using the Congressional Review Act to challenge some of these things, and we will talk a little bit about that. But first let's just go back and talk a little bit about what others are doing right now. First off, tomorrow morning I am going to drop a bill, and this is kind of a nuclear weapon, if you will, of fighting regulations. Because of the continuous onslaught of regulations that seem to be designed to cause unemployment rather than to help with unemployment, I think it's time we just put a big old hold on the regulatory agencies and tell them that unless this is of major national importance, we don't think there ought to be any regulations for the balance of this Congress. So I am proposing a bill for the outright ban of all new Federal regulations through the remainder of the Obama administration until January 31, 2013. This would remove, in this period of time when we're trying to bring our job numbers up and bring our unemployment numbers down, this would give the country an opportunity to take, at least in one area, a deep breath and relax, that the regulators are not going to change the playing field on them halfway through a year or through a month. There are so many regulations that we've talked about in the past few months and for the balance of this year that are surprises to everybody, and they're throwing big, big monkey wrenches in the machinery that drives our economy. Now, if you read the newspapers or you hear people commenting on why aren't people creating jobs, why is capital investment on the sidelines, why are people holding on to their money instead of investing their money in their businesses or investing their money in some other people's businesses so we can grow this economy, they're sitting on the sideline and they're not participating. And you will hear both sides of the aisle in this House talk about the trillions of dollars that are being held back from investment. You'll hear arguments made by the other side, by the Democrats in this House, that it's the greed of the big corporations that's doing this. But then when you study the problem, it's not just the big giant corporations that are kind of sitting back and waiting. It's the small businessman. It's the guy that's got one shop, and he's thinking about adding on to that shop, and he may be thinking about adding one more machinist or one more salesman. But you know what? There are too many questions about what's over the horizon for them to take the chance of investing their money when they don't know what's going to happen. And as I explained as I started out, part of it is they wonder about the possibility of new taxes. Secondly, because there's been a lot of talk from this administration about taxes, they're backing off of it now, but many of the things they do seem to change depending on which way the wind's blowing, and so they're worried about the possibility of new taxes. They're worried about the fact that they can look at numbers, they read balance sheets, even the small businessmen can read balance sheets and profit and loss statements. And they look at this Federal Government and they say, my Lord. Just this year alone, based on President Obama's proposed budget for 2011, they're projecting about a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. And most businesspeople know what deficit means. And most of all of us do, but sometimes we think it's some big word coming out of Washington, not realizing what it really is. It means you're spending money you don't have. In fact, arguably, every time you buy something with your credit card, you're deficit spending. You don't have the cash in your pocket to buy the new television set so you put it on your credit card. You borrow the money. You spend money that you don't have. Now, if we were like the great State of Texas where we have a balanced budget requirement in the constitution in Texas, then the Texas legislature, they can't deficit spend. They can't spend money they don't have. They have a no-deficit spending provision in that constitution that says you get to spend what the projected revenues are, and that's it. And it's sometimes--and you ask the good members of our legislature, sometimes it's real tough to make things work. But you know what? They always somehow figure out a way to get it done. And this year is no exception. It's tough in Texas. And they're doing the things we're trying to do here in this House. They are reducing their spending, as are States across the country. All you have to do is turn on the television. You see the issues in Wisconsin and Michigan and other places, and Minnesota--well, not Minnesota, Indiana, all these people are addressing it, New York, Virginia, they're addressing the fact that they've just got to cut back on their spending. Well, we're addressing that fact too in this House right now. But the businessman looks at that and says, well, what's their track record? Well, our track record's not real good. In fact, our track record is such that they say odds are they're not going to do these cuts that are necessary to stop it. Here's something kind of interesting. Right now, in H.R. 1, the Republican majority has set forth a series of cuts that total up to about $63 billion. They've agreed now to about $10 billion. So let's call it $53 billion just kind of on the table out there waiting for some kind of action from the Senate. This is attached to a continuing resolution. Now, that business owner back home, he looks at that and he says, let's see, $63 billion--that's a tiny little bandaid on a gigantic rear end of an elephant, but that's the tax cuts that are being proposed, and they don't seem to be able to get those things. Not tax cuts. That's the spending cuts that are being proposed. They don't even seem to be able to do that. What in the world are they going to do about this $1.6 trillion? So he says, I don't think I want to play in that ballpark. That's too dangerous for me. I have a little savings in my back pocket to invest in my business. But now's not a good time. There's way too much debt floating around out there. There's way too much uncertainty about the economy floating around out there. I think I'll wait. So my plan to create one or two new jobs to grow my profits for my business is going to have to wait. Even though I may have the money to invest, it's going to wait because I don't feel the environment's good for it. It's another one of those unknowns that's keeping capital and keeping the growing of the labor force from happening. Finally, these regulations. When, as our friend from Georgia was just talking about--just take, for instance, the issue that has to do with this, these new regulations concerning pesticides that have come out. It came out and then it was--I think, some court has gotten involved in it. But what they've done, basically, is told the people who use pesticides, and I think everybody knows, pesticides are to kill bugs that eat crops. That's kind of the general use for pesticides. So that means that your farmers, your ranchers, and some of your business people are going to be affected by this. And they look at it and say, wow. I used to have to have a permit. I got one. Now all of a sudden I've got to have a new permit. It's going to cost me some more money. They changed the rules in the middle of the game, and now I'm sitting here wondering what in the world am I going to do if they change the rules again. So what am I going to do with my money? I'm going to keep it in my pocket. I'm not going to invest in my business. I'm not going to expand my farm. I'm not going to buy that new combine. I'm not going to trade for some more cattle. I'm basically going to sit where I am and hold pat. And I'm also not going to hire anybody to help me with those issues. These are things that are typical of what causes the people who invest in the real world of private business, who employ two-thirds or more of the American public, to sit on the sidelines. So big business or small, if you don't understand the playing field, and there are people out there that can change your life at a whim, you get concerned about it. We've seen so many examples of that. I'll just throw out the flex permitting Clean Air Act issues that are going on in Texas, which we've talked about before. After 15 years of using a flex permit in Texas, never a word said by the EPA, all of a sudden, out of the clear blue they decide, oh, you know what? I don't think we like that flex permit, so we're just going to do away with it, and we're going to change the rules. Without going into what a flex permit is, it's very simple. If flex permit worked for your business 1 day and the next day you had to have a completely different permit with a whole new set of rules and a whole new set of obligations, you would be very concerned about the environment within which your business is being operated. And, by the way you'd be really upset when you realized that your clean air issues in your State where you're using a flexible permit, the clean air reductions have met the demands of the EPA and, in fact, probably exceed many, many States who don't go to a flexible permitting system. For some reason, your State who is doing good has to change permits to do like some of the States that aren't doing as good as your State. And you have to say to yourself, What is the motive for all this? Well, would you put your money into a project when something like that could happen to you? We ask ourselves, Why have we been having unemployment in this country somewhere between 10 percent and 8.9 percent over the last 25 months? Well, part of it is the people who create the jobs, the real jobs, the jobs that make our economy grow, are the business people of this country; and for 25 months they have not been hiring because we have created a world of mistrust in what might happen to you that you couldn't even imagine as a result of actions of this Federal Government. To me, the most important thing we have to do in this Congress right now is create jobs. It will change the very makeup of our Nation if we get our Nation back to work. And it is time for the government to get out of the way of small business, get out of the way of the entrepreneurs in this country, and give them the opportunity to create jobs. With all the playing defense that we are trying do here in the House with the Congressional Review Act and other proposals that are out there, it seems to me we ought to just say, at least for a 2-year period, just, Time out. Time out. No more regulations. Just stop right where you are. There are enough regulations in effect right now by the Federal regulatory agencies to fill this entire Chamber to the ceiling with books, so I don't think it would hurt us too much. If it turns out it is a national emergency and you have such an issue that it is just so overwhelmingly necessary to come up with a regulation, then maybe we will put it out and submit it to Congress and let Congress make a determination about whether or not it is of that dire importance. But right now, just quit messing with us. Just get out of the way and let us have a chance to go do what we do best. I forget who it was. I want to say it was Calvin Coolidge, but it was one of our past Presidents who said that the business of America is business. And it still is. Two or three Saturdays ago, I was at South by Southwest, which is a very exciting activity that takes place in Austin, Texas, that not only promotes the live music industry, which is huge in Austin--it is the live music capital of the world--but, in addition, it promotes entrepreneurship among people with new great ideas. And great people, I talked to them and they were so exciting, such great young people, many of them in the high-tech industry, but in all of the industries. And those young people sat there and told me that, The one thing you can do that would hurt us the most is tax stock options and put up regulations that would prevent me doing what I need to do in my project. So, if the government will stay out of my way and if you won't impose taxes on the very source of investment money that I am seeking as a new entrepreneur, if you don't do those two things and you stay out of the way, I have got an idea that can change this country. And many of them have just those ideas. Some of the things we have now like Facebook, those things like that they made a movie about and all that stuff, all that was the idea of a young entrepreneur, and he got somebody to invest in it and, boom, it swept the world. So that's why I have got a moratorium on regulations. But in addition, we have got a couple of folks that are taking off after regulations that are clearly hurting the opportunity to create jobs. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, is being proposed and requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their regulations on small business. We have something like this now, but it is going to be expanded and made more clear. And, if the impact is significant, consider alternatives that are less burdensome. The agencies must balance the burdens imposed by the regulations against the benefits, and propose alternatives to the regulations which create economic disparities among different size entities. The Small Business Committee has held hearings on the RFA and they are holding some tomorrow, on Wednesday, to discuss this agency compliance with the act. Bad regs are killing good jobs, and that is what I have been talking about, and here is the Small Business Committee looking at small business with really a focus on small business. Now, why do you hear people talk about small business in Congress when you have got all these giant international corporations that our friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about? Well, for one thing, seven out of 10 Americans get a job in small business. Small business creates seven out of 10 private sector jobs in the United States. Some of those private sector jobs are real well-paying jobs. In fact, some of the people that I was talking to at this little entrepreneur group that I was with, they said, Well, the first ten people we will employ, we expect their salary range to be somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 a year. Now, that's darned good jobs. But they are looking to hire highly skilled technical people to advance a concept they have in the high-tech industry. What do we get from those concepts? Well, you have probably got a cell phone in your pocket. You may have the new Apple iPad sitting on your desk, or you may actually be communicating with a brand-new one which has a camera in it so you can talk to your spouse around the world or your friend around the world and both of you can see each other. These are all ideas that came from entrepreneurial thinking that began with one person with an idea. The one thing Americans still have to sell is ideas, and we are the only innovative idea creators on Earth. Everybody else is good at copying, but we are the guys with the original thoughts. We don't want to kill that. We don't want regulations to kill it. And we don't want bad regs to keep this unemployment number above 8 percent, almost 9 percent. Another act is H.R. 872. This is a bill about Congress battling a bad ruling by the Federal courts. The bill eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement for the application of pesticides. That is what our friend from Georgia was talking about just a few minutes ago, Mr. Scott. This will now require a different type of permitting system and it will, quite honestly, place the burden on farmers, ranchers, and anybody who uses pesticides, I assume exterminators and so forth, and will put a huge burden on them. And the only thing you can do is clearly put a halt to this EPA new regulatory activity. Even though the court recently said, Well, we won't require this until October, it doesn't matter whether it is required today or whether it is required in October; whenever it is required, it is still a burden. So my friends on the Ag Committee are very, very serious about challenging the creation of this new regulation. We have been using the Congressional Review Act, and we have got several things that we have dealt with on the Congressional Review Act. This is a law today. This law was created in the Clinton administration and has been used once, and that is the only time it has ever been used, which surprises me. But we are trying to use it on multiple bills that are out there that are creating a regulatory burden on individuals or industries of this country. Last year, the Federal Government issued a total of 3,316 new rules and regulations, an average of 13 rules a day. Seventy-eight of those new rules last year were major rules. A major rule is a rule that may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or significant adverse effects on the economy. If it is a new rule, it is required under the Congressional Review Act that it be submitted to the committees of jurisdiction that cover that rule in the House and Senate and that they have the opportunity within 60 legislative days, that is days that the Congress is in session, not counting the days it is not in session. And if there is a vote, and let's say the House passes it and sends it to the Senate, then it only requires 30 Senators to cosponsor the bill to bring that vote to a full vote in the Senate. Then we will have the opportunity to send some bad regulations that passed both the House and the Senate to the President, and he told us less than a month ago that one of his goals this year was to get rid of these onerous regulations that are costing us jobs in America. And I think that if both this House and the Senate, the Senate across the way, if both those entities feel it is a bad rule, I think the President will look at it, and I am very hopeful that he will dispose of that rule. When I say this, we are not talking just about the EPA. There are a lot of rules out there, but EPA just seems to have more than their share right now. I talked about the Flexible Permitting Act. We have filed a CRA challenge, a Congressional Review Act challenge, to the flexible permitting program. Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee has been or is holding hearings on the Clean Air Act and on this issue. That will be one issue that we are going to be working on trying to get done. The FCC has a regulation for net neutrality. This rule grants the Federal Government new power to regulate the Internet, restricting access and stalling innovation. One of the things that those young people that I met with the other night, it was about 100 of them now, it is not a small group, they all said, most of them, that the Internet was a tool they were using to come up with good ideas or to promote their good ideas or to use the Internet for their good ideas; and they were very much opposed, as am I, to any regulation of the Internet. The freedom of the Internet is a freedom of expression, a freedom of expression which creates a freedom of ideas, and the exchange of ideas creates innovation, which is the fuel to drive our economy. So Mr. Greg Walden is addressing this issue under the CRA of net neutrality. HHS has a rule on medical loss ratio. This regulation will require all health care plans to pay a minimum of 80 percent of premiums toward health services, eliminating coverage for 47 percent of Americans in small group and individual health plans. This is an area which we have filed, my office and John Carter have filed this. However, I am going to have a lot of assistance from the medical professionals in this House in going forward on this medical loss ratio. It is a serious regulation which will seriously harm the advancement of health care in America. Then we have a NESHAP rule for portland cement manufacturing industries. This has to do with cement kilns that make portland cement. ``Portland'' is not named after a town. It is a process whereby you make the cement that binds concrete to create concrete for this country. There are 18 cement kilns that are likely to close as a result of this. This kills good-paying jobs. The average paying job in one of these kilns starts at around $60,000 to $70,000 a year and goes up. These are good jobs. Now, where are these jobs going to go? You have to have cement. A great number of the kilns that make portland cement have moved offshore already, and they are over in China and they are over in India and places like that where they have no regulation on particulates that go into the air. Meanwhile, we have actually reduced a lot of the things that go into the air under the present regulations. But these new regulations will move those American jobs out of the country to another country; and rather than help the air, because the same air is in India and China as is over here, it is all part of this great big place we call the world, we will still be polluting the air, but 10 times worse than we do under our current regulations in the United States, and we lose the jobs. So we are going to seek a vote on portland cement manufacturing regulations. And the argument that this increases mercury pollution is absolutely false because we have evidence to show that mercury pollution, if it is in the United States, it is coming from offshore. So all these things are things that are proposed right now. We have got charts over here to look at each one of them. Here is the regulatory moratorium, an outright ban on Federal regulations. It removes the top obstacle to economic recovery. Business won't hire with ObamaCare and EPA regs hanging over their head. The Regulatory Flexibility Act. The shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions. The 09 research--that is a word I can't read--organization. Look at this. This is what is happening from regulations. It is going up on the unemployment scale. The RFA requires the Federal agencies to assess the economic impact on small businesses--we talked about that--to come up with alternatives, because unemployment rates are around or above 9 percent for the last 22 months, and it is time that we make these regulations be assessed, and seven out of 10 new jobs are created by these small businesses. When you hear us talk about the Pesticide Act, very clearly there are the folks that are dealing with it right there, the farmers of America. It is duplicative. That means they already have a permit that allows them to put out these pesticides, and because of this ruling they are having to get another permit at another cost and meet other guidelines for these pesticides. The Sixth Circuit we think with this Cotton Council versus the EPA made a bad ruling, and these higher costs to producers and consumers and the government are all built into this one bad regulation. This act that we talked about, 872, is to block this bad ruling. This is the kind of fight we have to have to prevent the regulators from getting so involved that they actually shut down our businesses. Now, no one here, including me, I am certainly not, and I don't think anybody in this House, is proposing that we are going to do things that are harmful. It is not like they weren't already regulating that pesticide. They just came up with a new permit, new money to spend, new hoops to jump through in order to apply pesticides. Here is what I have been talking about, the Congressional Review Act. It allows Congress to review every new Federal regulation issued by the government agencies and by passage of a joint resolution overrule that regulation. On these things I have been talking about, the House and the Senate both can go forward under this act, and we can put the brakes on some bad regulations. Here are the ones I mentioned. The Texas flexible permitting program, the net neutrality rule, the medical loss ratio and the portland cement: those all can be addressed by this act, and many more. But maybe we could save ourselves a whole lot of time and effort by just passing the newest proposal that I have put forward, and that is a law that says, time-out until 2013 on any regulations from the government, and let's just hold off and let's give this economy a chance to grow. And when it grows, we will prosper, we will get out of this mess we're in, and we will get back to being the America we all treasure and love. It's not hard to imagine that if there's something really bad, of course, this House will protect it. But many of these things are people in closed rooms, some of which don't even understand the industry they're regulating, coming up with rules because they have a concept of government that is all government--all roads lead to Rome--all government leads to Washington, and that all government decisions and all life decisions should be made here, in Washington. There are people in this city, literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in this city, that believe that all life issues should be resolved by the Federal Government. The perfect example that just really upsets me is the fact that, kind of randomly, when the opposite party, the Democrats, took over in the House, they decided to get rid of all the light bulbs in all the office buildings, and they put in these curly Q light bulbs all over everywhere. These lights, you turn some of them on, it takes you a good 20 count before the light even has enough light to see. That's very uncomfortable, especially in the bathroom. But we've got them. And if you take yours out and put the old incandescent light bulb in there, the next day you'll come back and the maintenance man will have taken it out and put one of those curly Q light bulbs back in there, because the government knows better what light bulbs you ought to have than you do. In fact, they passed a law that says you're not going to be able to have anything but those light bulbs. They fail to realize that if you accidentally drop one of those light bulbs onto the floor and it bursts, it's got mercury vapor in it--and some other nasty stuff I don't even know what it is--and all of a sudden you've got to call the hazardous material team to come in in hoods and suits and do a hazmat removal of that broken light bulb. Now I'm sorry. I like to say that one of the things that we have a real shortage of in America, especially the America that's inside the Beltway in Washington, D.C., is common sense. But to put a hazardous material light bulb in to correct something that you have against a normal light bulb because you think it burns too much power is really not very cost efficient. I am very pleased to see my friend, Mr. Steve King from Iowa, drift in here. If the gentleman has anything he wants to talk about here tonight, I would be glad to yield him some time.

Mr. CARTER. I will reclaim my time. I am just about through. I just wanted to point out, I don't have anything against fluorescent light bulbs. I've got a few fluorescent light bulbs in my workshop out in the garage, mainly because they just gave me more light for less money, not because of the electricity. But I made that choice. I think that's fine. If people want to choose to have all fluorescent light bulbs in their house, I think that's great. That's the America we love. But I don't think Nancy Pelosi or anybody else in this House of Representatives ought to be telling us what kind of light bulbs we have to have. It doesn't make sense. It's not fair to you. You are a person of independent will. You are granted liberty and freedom by your Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and those are just recording God-given rights and privileges. I don't see why we think we are the center of the universe for knowledge in this House to come up and tell you what kind of light bulbs you can have. Or what kind of energy that you can consume. Unless it comes out to be against the national interest. And I would argue right now with all the alternative energy, we haven't got anything to replace what we're using right now yet. But keep working on it and then we'll let us make the choice, let the American citizens make the choice as to what they want to do. I think that's good freedom. That's good liberty. That's what we are all about in this country, and that's why we prosper, because we give the individual the right to make his own choices. If he chooses to do something that harms others, we can put a stop to that. That's why we have laws. But if he doesn't, if he just wants to live his life the way he wants to live it, we don't have any business telling the individual how to live his life. And I would argue this stupid light bulb rule is one of those things. I will argue that until it is imposed completely as a mandate sometime next fall, I think. And then I guess the light bulb police will be coming after me. But, seriously, this is the kind of things that we do by regulation, or impose our will on others, and in many instances it is done by bureaucrats who sit in Washington, D.C., and they probably have never even seen that plow that we just saw in that farm, except maybe they've seen it on television. But they've certainly not seen anybody out there sweating on an Iowa farm or a Texas farm operating what looks like is a disc harrow that's turning the soil there. And yet they're writing regulations to regulate this man's life. Maybe they're the right thing to do, but you wonder when they have one and they come up with another one that you have to still meet the first one, stack the second one on top of it, and it clearly serves no purpose. These are all the kind of arguments that frustrate you. They're the kind of things that make the average businessman, the average farmer, rancher, decide to hold off on investing in America because he wants to know what America he's investing in, he or she is investing in. That is the real issue that is driving the fact that we are still sitting here right around 9 percent unemployment after all these months, over 25 months, we're sitting here with the same 8.9, which is as close to 9 as I want to get percent unemployment because the Americans that create the jobs are concerned about what's next. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, our friend from Kentucky has been down here with me talking just about that act. I don't know if you were in when we first started this. I have just proposed, because I see this tidal wave of regulation, this hurry up and regulate everything you can in a hurry going on by the administration, I will tomorrow morning file a bill to declare a moratorium on all regulations. And they would have to come to Congress showing good cause why it's in the national interest for the good of all mankind that there be an exception to that moratorium so that we would basically just call a king's X, time out, and let's wait for the end of this administration and we'll see what happens in the next one. And by that time we can settle down and create a few jobs in this country because they wouldn't have to, at least for the next 2 years, worry about regulations. So I'll get you a copy of that. It's real simple: no regulations for the next 2 years.

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I will.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Those are excellent comments. And those light bulbs are a particular sticking point in my life. I don't like being mandated to purchase anything, quite honestly, by the government. And it is really kind of hypocritical to say everybody has got to use these lights, but we can't make them in the country because the regulators won't let us. And we create the regulators. So it is just hypocritical. I guess what we are trying to say to folks out there and to the people in this Chamber is that it is time to take a look at this secret world of regulators. And it really is a secret to the American people. I don't think I would make a bad estimate if regulations were printed on both sides of paper like that size paper; and this Chamber has, what, 80 foot ceilings, 100 foot ceilings, and it is probably 40 yards long and 20 yards wide? Stacking these regulations on pages like this, you would have to have at least two or three of them, probably just to cover the IRS Code, much less all the other regulations. The voluminous number of regulations that are out there will literally boggle your mind. If there is a good reason to have the Internet, it is to have somebody help you keep track of the regulations probably better than anything I can think of. They're there. They interfere with our lives. Some of them help and some of them don't. And the people's representatives should have a say. The Congressional Review Act is presently giving us a chance to have a say, and we hope to bring many of these, actually all of these, to the floor of this House for a vote and to the floor of the Senate for a vote. With the REINS Act passed and signed into law, it gives us another way to get the people of this House who represent the people of this country to cast a vote on behalf of their citizens back home as to whether a major regulation will or will not help this Nation. As we sit here trying to take down barriers to creating jobs, if there's one thing more than anything else that we've got to do for now and for the foreseeable future in this Congress, it is help take down barriers and get the entrepreneurial spirit going again and get the environment such that people quit sitting on their money and go out and hire new people to help them make bigger profits and grow their companies by hiring people and giving them a job. That's our number one priority. It must be. These regulations, some of them are good, but many of them are onerous and prevent these jobs that we're talking about. I thank the Speaker for his time.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, you're exactly right. So that people understand, many of these regulations, as they look at things, they don't look at the big picture of what that regulation was meant to do. In fact, I don't think they consider just how far reaching what they're doing is going to be. I would venture to guess that when they wrote that regulation concerning that particular chemical that had leached down through a crack and gotten parts per billion or whatever it was into the dirt, that they probably envisioned some big factory dumping major chemical deposits out on the ground. They never thought of a mom- and-pop cleaners that might have a slight crack in the foundation which causes a very minute amount to fall down there and then say, You've got to remediate like a monster company who dumps all this trash in there should have to remediate. I think that the people that were writing that were thinking about the big guy, never realizing what they were doing on the little guy. Last night, I guess it was, I had a really nice invitation from some people. There's an event in Austin. I'm going to plug for them because it's a great event. It's called South by Southwest. And many people think of it as a music festival. There's lots of bands that come in. They have lots of live music. Austin is the live music capital of the world. But there's also a lot of entrepreneurs. High-tech innovators and all sorts of people come there to share ideas, to go to seminars about how we're going to thrive in the 21st century. It's a great, I believe, week-long celebration. It may be longer than that. Last night, I was invited to a private meeting between--I'd say there's at least 100 to 150 people with ideas, and what they call angel investors; that is, people who are willing to look at these ideas and maybe be willing to loan startup money to get these companies started. The first thing I want to tell you: I don't believe I've ever walked into a room where there were more enthusiastic people who thought they had a great idea. I mean, it just felt good talking to these young people. Many of them, you wouldn't be able to pick them out on the college campus from all the rest of the kids on the college campus. They look just like all the kids on the college campus, and many of them were. But they had an idea, had come up with an idea. These were the Michael Dells and the Bill Gates of the future that had an idea, and they were gathering with other people with ideas. Of course, when we think of this, when we mention Michael Dell and Bill Gates and the people in the high-tech industry, we think everything is high tech and Internet; but, in fact, some of the ideas were just pretty simple. But somebody had a good idea. And one of them I thought was kind of innovative was a rolling kitchen. These were gourmet chefs who said, you know, I want to cook. I've got good food, but I don't want to have to buy a facility. I want to just have a Winnebago with a full kitchen in it and a way to sell my food outside the door, and I'm going to sell gourmet food on the street like a street vendor. It's an interesting concept, and it seems to be, as it was described to me, the beginning of a very successful idea. Now, these ideas were there, and there were people who come and invest in those things. I met one guy who said, Yeah, you know, sometimes you pick a winner and sometimes you don't, but I've picked a couple of winners. One of them was Netflix. I got in the first day on Netflix. Now we're doing pretty good. But what this was, this was the seed corn, if you will, of capitalism in America. This is what it's all about. But most of the people that had projects there had something to do with a tool that we all are learning about, and that is the Internet. Now, we have rules coming down from the Federal Government. The FCC is putting out rules to grant the Federal Government new power to regulate the Internet, restrict access and, thus, stalling this type of innovation of these dynamic young men and women that I met last night with their great concepts on how to improve life and create a business. Our Founding Fathers were very smart. They realized if you give us liberty, from that will come new ideas; from those new ideas will come entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs; from that will come jobs, capital to reinvest and grow a thriving economy. We have been living on that basic system of private enterprise in this country now since the inception of this country, and these young technocrats have learned how to use the Internet as a tool to make life better for people. Yet if you ask them what they don't want, they don't want the Federal Government regulating them. Now, the people that are wanting to regulate, they're looking at maybe some things they see as problems. I don't know what problems they are. Maybe they think somebody is using it to enhance politics other than theirs and they're worried about the other guy having access for political reasons. Maybe they're worried about some of the bad things that are on the Internet. And there are bad things. Our terrorists are learning how to make weapons to kill other people on the Internet. But they are not realizing that, as they take something that's working and stick the Federal Government in there, it probably isn't going to be working as good. The Federal Government doesn't do a whole lot to make things work well. So the unintended consequences of that is they would basically destroy this exciting, innovative industry that's being created in this country to come up with new ideas that, hopefully, make life better and more convenient for all of us and, in turn, hopefully, generate wealth for those who have the ideas, because that's what we are all about. Right now, using this tool, until we can get Mr. Davis' REINS Act-- which I'm a cosponsor and almost everybody I know is. We're going to try to get this thing passed this session of Congress, signed into law by the President of the United States, as a tool that all Members of Congress should respect. Until that time, we use the Congressional Review Act. And here's some things we are looking at in the Congressional Review Act. The EPA rule disapproving the State of Texas' flexible permitting system under the Clean Air Act. We filed H.J. Res. 21, John Carter sponsors that. FCC Net Neutrality Rule, H.J. Res. 37, Greg Walden is using the Congressional Review Act to look into that. HHS rule on medical loss ratio, MLR, requirements under the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.J. Res. 19, I am going after that rule with the Congressional Review Act. NESHAP Rule for Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, H.J. Res. 42. Again, Representative Carter. This rule is likely to close 18 cement kilns around the country and destroy good American jobs, driving them overseas to places like China and India, possibly increasing the mercury pollution in the United States from offshore pollution. These are just examples of some things we have been working on. We have talked about them before. And I can assure you, my office right now is daily checking every service we can find to find out about every regulation that is being proposed so that we can look at the ones that we can be aggressive and take the offense on for the Congressional Review Act. Once again, the REINS Act would shift the burden, as we say in the law, and it would mean that we would have to vote on any major regulation as by the definition that Mr. Davis has given us. So both these tools would be available to Members of Congress for us to be able to look at these administrative rules that are being passed, which are basically done by individuals and agencies, not by this Congress, and give this Congress, which represents the people, to be responsible for whether or not the rule passes. Therefore, if the folks back home want somebody to blame, that is what you take this job for. The buck stops with your vote. If you support the rule, you are going to be responsible for it. And if the folks back home don't like it, you are going to own it. But that is what we came up here for. We came up here to be responsible for our constituents, to be their voice in Washington. Maybe my friend, Mr. Davis, would like to comment again. So once again I yield to you.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, Mr. King, to talk about an American hero. Honoring Corporal John Michael Peck

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Congressman King. That was a wonderful thing to do. He is a wonderful American hero, Mr. Peck. We are very proud to get to know him, and we wish him well. We are grateful for his spirit. Tonight, we are going to talk again about the regulations that are going on in this country. I am very pleased to be joined by Congressman Geoff Davis of the great State of Kentucky, which happens to be my father's home State. Congressman Davis is going to join us, and we are going to talk about a one-two punch that we hope to put together for regulations. Right now, as we've been talking about in the past, we have a tool which allows this Congress to review certain major pieces of regulation that come from the regulators, that is, from the Departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It's called the Congressional Review Act. It allows Congress to review every new major Federal regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of joint resolution, to override that regulation. The process you go through is that the Federal agencies submit to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. a comprehensive report on any major proposed rule. The Congress has 60 legislative days to pass a joint resolution disapproving the rule. The Senate must vote on a CR resolution of disapproval. Now, that's kind of where this thing is right now, and that's the tool we have. We've been talking about that as we've been talking about the massive number of regulations that have just inundated this country since the beginning of this administration. So, before I yield to my friend for a conversation about the REINS Act, which will be the reverse of that and a new tool--and I'll let him explain it--just let me tell you something about the amount of regulations that have been put into effect during the Obama administration. It is an epidemic. The Federal Government has issued 3,360 new rules and regulations, an average of 13 new rules a day--78 of those new rules just last year. A ``major rule'' is a rule that, as I said, may result in having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in the cost of prices for consumers or significant adverse effects to the economy. By the way, we are just getting started, it seems, with regard to what ObamaCare is doing, and it is probably going to be the mother of all rulemaking instruments. Geoff Davis, Congressman Davis, has a new and better idea, a tool-- although this is a great tool--that I think will function even better. So I am going to yield to Congressman Geoff Davis whatever time he needs to consume to start our talking about the REINS Act. That's not ``rain'' like we pray for over in Texas all the time, is it?

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for explaining this to us, and you hit on a bunch of points I think we need to keep reminding the American people about because we've all been out there living our lives, raising our kids, doing the things with our wives, and just getting caught up in living. And on the periphery, we hear of something that may interfere with our little business we formed or may interfere with a big business that we've got a job in that's going to cause issues, and we just tend to say Congress did it. When, in reality, most of the things I believe that people hear those things about some rule that requires them to put up a barrier or like I had one guy tell me, They made me put up water retention barriers in the desert in New Mexico where it hadn't rained in 4 years. And he thought that was ridiculous; and I said, well, I kind of have to agree with that, and I guess there's some reason for it. But the point is that wasn't done by Congress. That was done by one of these regulators you are talking about. When you write a rule or regulation that would cost this country, this society, $100 million, then that has a major effect on some human being that lives in this country; and I think we have the responsibility as the representatives of the people to take a look at that thing and decide if that's the right thing to do. The way the Congressional Review Act is, they file it and then we have to take aggressive action to get a vote on that issue. By the REINS Act, it would be mandatory that it be filed and it must have a vote. There is no exception as I understand it. So if something is going to change $100 million or more of your life, you would think the guy you elected or gal that you voted for to come here and speak on your behalf ought to have something to say about it. That's why I like the REINS Act; it puts a responsible party responsible for the things that bureaucrats do. Bureaucrats have the ability to make these fancy rules that they're not responsible for. They write them; but then, you know, they've got a paycheck, they're civil servants, their job's protected with what I would argue is a sort of tenure after a certain period of time. They may even be represented by a labor union. And so they're sitting here safe and sound; and when they write that regulatory act, they don't answer to any voters back home to decide whether they keep their job, providing a good act or a bad act. They and probably a panel of people they are working with decide this is a good idea. But here's what's going on right now that has many of us very concerned. A lot of issues that now we're facing with regulation were issues we voted on in this Congress. We discussed in committees in the last 2 years when the Democrats were in charge of this House and the Senate and the Presidency, and those things they were not able to gets passed through both Houses and signed by their President, the Democratic President, Mr. Obama, and yet now they're trying to do those same things by regulation; and the perfect example is CO2. The whole issue of greenhouse gases, basically they could not get a vote by both Houses of Congress to support calling greenhouse gases noxious gases that should be regulated or should be eliminated. So now they just passed a rule, or they're passing a rule, at the EPA and declaring it. They got one court to make a ruling in their favor; and with that, they're going forward on it. But that issue is in debate in this House today, and it will be in debate when the REINS Act brings it before this House for a vote. That's why if we can get this passed--and I believe we will get support, bipartisan support, by both sides of the aisle, both in this House and in the Senate, and I'm very hopeful that the President will sign it because it's a tool that works for--doesn't matter what party you're in because, hey, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Republican Presidents or Republican administrations haven't proposed bad regulations, because they have. And it's not a party responsibility here. It's an individual Member's responsibility to make sure that we don't write regulations that are going to in such a way hinder our ability to do the things of commerce that keep jobs being created and so forth that we let the bureaucrats run the country. We elect them to run the country. They got hired for a job, and I think that anything that has this kind of influence on the economy requires a vote of the people, who said I will take responsibility for making the voice of the people in my district heard in Washington. You're not going to get that voice heard by the regulators. It's going to have to be here in Congress. I commend my colleague, Mr. Davis, for a good bill, well done, and a concept that enhances the liberty and freedom of the American citizens. I yield back for your comments.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank you for your comment. I'm sure there have got to be some people that are listening to this who want to say, Did he really say ``regulate dust''?

Mr. CARTER. Yes. There is a proposed rule to regulate dust. Now, that statute actually exists in the State of California, which is closest to bankruptcy of any State in this country. And the Central Valley of California has had an issue about water and the shortage of water in the Central Valley, one of the breadbaskets of the entire Nation, because of a debate over water. Until it started to rain, they've been dry as a powder keg, but they have the dust regulation in California. So we inquired of them, What do you do if you've got a gravel road going up to your farmhouse to keep the dust down? Well, we have to water it every day. We have to take this shortage water that we don't have enough to even grow a clump of spinach, and we water our roads so we don't violate our local Clean Air Act in California. And I got humorous about that because I went to school at Texas Tech in Texas. And although we have come a long way up on the south plains of Texas in reducing the amount of dust storms that have been up in the panhandle of Texas, we still have dust storms. And when I was at Texas Tech, we had dust storms that were so bad that if you drove into the wind, they would literally sandblast the front paint off of your car. Now I want to know what the fine is going to be and who's going to have to pay the fine when there's dust blowing in all the way from New Mexico and Arizona that comes blowing into your State, and who is the EPA going to punish? I haven't got a good idea. But chances are, the farmer. And that's the real tragedy here. Certainly there are particles in the air that are bad for folks like me who have asthma, and we have to be concerned about it. And we're not going to let people overproduce any kind of disaster. But to say you can produce no dust on a farm is pretty close to crazy. Just the turn of a plough creates dust. Just the driving of the pickup to the barn creates dust. And I think it's a little overreaching. I was talking about this $600 fee that you've got to have to be a volunteer. I tried to think of one that everybody might understand, and I thought of a good one. Everybody has got a school board in their State somewhere, a local school board. And generally these local school boards are either wanting to have a tax increase or they are wanting to float a bond issue or something like that. So they create these volunteer groups called ``friends of the school board'' who go out in the community and try to help the school board get this bond passed so they can have better schools for the children of that school district. Everybody experiences that across this whole Nation, and every Member of this Congress probably knows something about that. But under the new proposed regulation, every one of those volunteers that goes out and promotes the bond issue would have to pay a $600 federal fine to get a license to talk about the bond issue, as if they were some kind of financial adviser to the American public. And what we really have there is a new revenue source created by the bureaucrats to put more money in the coffers of their bureau or their agency. That's the kind of thing that makes no sense. My secretary was bragging on the fact that she thought the county commissioner was going to appoint her to this volunteer board. And I said, well, you'd better get a check ready for 600 bucks. She said, well, no, it doesn't pay anything. I said, yeah, and by the way, the regulation also says that the person, the entity that appoints you to that board, cannot pay your $600 for you. You have to pay it, because you are now a financial adviser because that board has the ability to issue bonds. Now that's just a little bit too much. I had an old cowboy back in Texas that made a comment to me. He said, we don't have very many shortages in this country, but the one shortage we got in Washington, D.C. is, we have a severe shortage, dang near a drought, as he put it, of common sense. And part of the reason we have the Congressional Review Act is so that hopefully the common sense of the representatives of the people can prevail in these issues that are going to either harm our individual constituents, cost us jobs, or drive industries offshore, overseas, as we did with the cement manufacturers if we impose these severe penalties upon people who produce Portland cement. Portland cement doesn't mean it's from Portland; it means it's the process that they use to make cement. So today we're talking about what, I think, is something that the American people, now that they hopefully know a little bit about how much the agencies of this country and the bureaucrats and the secretaries and all the people that follow them, of all the Cabinet members in this executive branch, the kind of power they have to change the life of the individual and the life of the job producers and the job seekers in this country. And if we are going to give them that kind of control and that kind of power over people's individual lives, over the employer's ability to make the profit necessary to hire and create new jobs, if we're going to allow them to have that power, just like anything else, someone has to have oversight over these people and take a look at what they're doing and see if it is to the good of the American people and the good of our country. And that's why we have the Congressional Review Act. And in that Congressional Review Act, we get the chance to look at it. Just because it hasn't been used but rarely does not mean it shouldn't be used when the number of regulations have grown by geometric progressions in the last 2 years. When we create one bill, one bill, the health care bill that was created in the last session of Congress that creates 40 entities with rulemaking authority, 40 new entities that can create rules that affect the individual life and the health care of the American people--we have one particular entity that will actually be able to say what treatment can and cannot be given to certain people--surely this House would want to at least take a look at those regulations, because it might mean life or death to an American citizen if we do not allow that. So it is important. Congresswoman Ellmers from North Carolina, we are pleased to have you here. We would like you to explain what you want to show us here today.

Mr. CARTER. If the gentlelady would yield for a question, if I understand you correctly, the main reason for this route is because of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act?

Mr. CARTER. It is a mussel, you're saying?

Mr. CARTER. This is the town, here, which they are going to go in and condemn basically all of the town?

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I can see why people are a little upset about that.

Mr. CARTER. I can understand that. So if I am a potential employer who wants to build a factory and that is one of the places I might look at, I look at this and say wait a minute, I can buy the land, build my building, and then here comes the Corps of Engineers which puts the highway right through the middle of my building?

Mr. CARTER. So the builder says I think I'll wait or look somewhere else?

Mr. CARTER. These regulations should be looked at by this House if they are available to be looked at. Of course, some of these may be long since on the books before we had this tool to examine regulations as they come out. But still, it is good for you as the Representative of your folks in your district to come up and speak for the people because that's our job.