>> we are going to take you live in a couple of minutes to federal reserve chairman ben bernanke talking about the state of the financial markets one year after the collapse of the investment bank lehman brothers. he is expected to speak at the brookings institution in washington. we're having a little technical difficulty. we hope to clear up and take you live once it starts. in the meantime, a look at news and phone calls from today's "washington journal." our question for you for our first segment this morning is, how should wall street

deregulated? we have this story in "the washington post" today. that is are asked iranian excesses', support new rules. -- bankers are asked to rein in the excess is, support new rules. the democrats' line is 202-737- 0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. and independents, 202-628-0205. our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org, and we are on twitter,twitter.com/cspanwj. "obama offered a reminder that financial firms survive the meltdown because of expenses efforts by the government, which can potentially huge cost to taxpayers. among the dramatic actions were bailing out an american in a

national group, federal the pungent -- federal deposit insurance gcorp., and creating a $700 billion financial rescue fund." what do you think should be done right now as farñqqqqqqq >> "washington journal," life every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern grid with fixed the technical problem and will take you to the brookings institution with four reserve chairman ben bernanke. that is strobe talbott, president of the brookings institution, introducing ben bernanke. >> and then the aig bailout. the public servant in the eye of the storm throughout is our keynote speaker today, ben bernanke. he has been credited with keeping a cool head throughout this crisis, and also for implementing policies that helped avert a global financial

collapse. that is one of many reasons why president obama has reappointed him as chairman of the federal reserve. the chairman is going to speak to us, take some questions, and then go back to work helping guide our economy toward recovery and renewal. the chairmen will be followed by a panel discussion that will market the public to view of the two economists who are the new code directors of the economic studies program at brookings. karen dynan, and ted gayer. karen, who joined us from the fed, will moderate a panel, which will include ted, who came to us from georgetown university 's public policy institute. the other panelists are vincent reinhart, aei, glenn hutchins of

silver lake and brookings trustee, and two of our senior fellows, martin baily and eswar prasad. with that, it is my pleasure to welcome chairman bernanke to the podium. mr. chairman. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is nice to be back at brookings. as an academic, i frequently came here for brookings macro meetings, and it is a very valuable institution over many years in a wide variety of fields. by the standards of recent decades, the economic environment of a year ago was quite challenging period a year after the onset of a current crisis in to us seven, financial markets remain stressed, the economy was slowing, and inflation had risen significantly.

but we cannot fully appreciate that was that the economic and policy in our man was about to become a vastly more difficult -- economic and policy environment was about to become vastly more difficult. several institutions would either fail or come close to failure, activity in key markets would virtually ceased, and the global economy would enter a deeper recession. my remarks this morning will focus on the extraordinary financial and economic events of the past year, as well as on the policy responses in the united states and abroad. one of very clear lesson of the past year, no surprise to any student of economic history, but worth noting nonetheless, is that a full-blown financial crisis can exact an enormous toll in both human and economic terms. a second lesson, once again familiar to economic historians, is that financial disruptions to not respect borders. the crisis has been global, with no major country having been

immune. history is full of examples in which the policy responses to financial crises have been slow and inadequate, often resulting ultimately in greater economic damage and increase fiscal costs. in this episode, by contrast, policy makers in the united states and around the globe responded with speed and force to arrest a rapidly deteriorating and dangerous situation. looking forward, we must urgently address structural weaknesses in the financial system, in particular in the regulatory framework, to ensure that the enormous costs of the past two years will not be borne again. as of this time last year, financial markets and the economy will continue to suffer the effects of the ongoing crisis. we know now that the national bureau of economic research has determined that december 2007 was the beginning of a recession. the u.s. unemployment rate had

risen to 5.75% by july, about one percentage point above its level at the beginning of the crisis, and household spending was weakening. on going declines in construction and house prices and rising mortgage defaults and closures continued to weigh on the u.s. economy, and forecast the prospective credit losses of financial institutions both here and abroad continued to increase. indeed, what the nation's largest thrift institutions, indymac, had recently collapsed under the weight of the stress to mortgages. investors continue to harbor doubts about the condition of the government sponsored enterprises fannie mae and freddie mac, despite the approval open and its support for the two firms. -- open ended support for the two firms. there is little to suggest that market is and saw the financial situation as about to take a

sharp turn for the worse. for example, all the indicators of default risks, such as interest-rate spreads and credit default swaps remained well above historical norms, most of such measures had declined from earlier peaks, in many cases by substantial amounts. in september, when the target for the federal funds rate was 2%, investors saw little chance that it would be below 1.75% later. market participants evidently believed it improbable that significant monetary policy stimulus would be needed in the united states. nevertheless, in september 2008, the financial crisis intensified dramatically. despite the steps taken to support fannie mae and freddie mac, their condition continued to worsen. in early september, the company's regulator placed both firms into conservatorship, and

the treasury used its recently enacted authority to provide the firms with massive financial support. shortly thereafter, several additional large u.s. financial firms came under heavy pressure from creditors, counterparties, and customers. the federal reserve has consistently maintained the the you the disorderly failure of one or more systemically important institutions in the context of a broader financial crisis could have extremely adverse consequences for both of the financial system and the economy per. with spare no effort within our legal authorities in a proper cooperation with other agencies to avert such a failure. the case of the investment bank lehman brothers proved exceptionally difficult attempts to find a buyer for the company or to develop an industry solution proved unavailing, and the collateral fell well short of the amount needed to secure a

loan of sufficient size to meet its funding needs. as the federal reserve cannot make an unsecured loan, and the government as a whole lacked the proper authority or ability to inject capital, the firm's failure was, unfortunately, unavoidable. the federal reserve and the treasury were compelled to focus instead on mitigating the fallout from the failure -- for example, taking measures to stabilize -- in the case of the insurance company aig, the federal reserve judge said that the company's financial and business assets were adequate to secure and $85 billion line of credit, enough to avert its imminent failure. because aig was counterparty to many of the world's largest financial firms, a significant bar in -- borrower in the commercial paper market, a provider of products to tens of millions of customers, its collapse would intensify the

crisis substantially further, a time when u.s. authorities had not obtained the necessary fiscal authorities to deal with a mass of systemic event. the failure of lehman brothers and the near failure of aig were, however, dramatic, but hardly isolated events. many prominent firms struggled to survive as confidence plummeted. the investment bank merrill lynch, under pressure in the wake of lehman brothers' failure, agreed to be acquired by bank of america. washington mutual was resolved by the fdic in an assisted transaction, and the large commercial bank wachovia, after experiencing severe liquidity outflows, agreed to be sold. the largest maintaining -- but just standing investment banks, morgan stanley and goldman sachs, were approved under an emergency basis to become a bank holding companies. nor were the extraordinary pressures confirmed confine --

to the united states. -- nor were the extraordinary pressures confined to the united states. on september 29, the governments of belgium, luxembourg, and the netherlands effect fully nationalized the banking and insurance firm that assets of about $1 trillion. the same day, german authorities provided assistance to a large commercial real-estate lender, the british government nationalized another mortgage lender, bradford and bingley. september 30, the governments of belgium, france, and luxembourg inject capital into a bank with assets of more than $7 billion, and the irish government guaranteed the deposits of most other liabilities of six large irish financial institutions. soon thereafter, the icelandic government, lacking the resources to rescue the three largest banks in that country,

put into receivership and requested assistance from the imf and other nordic governments. in mid october, the swiss authorities announced a rescue package for ubs, one of the world's largest banks, that consisted of a capital injection and purchase of assets. the growing pressures were not limited to banks with significant exposure to the u.s. or u.k. real estate or to securitized assets. for example, unsubstantiated rumors circulated in late september that large swedish banks were having trouble rolling over wholesale deposits. on october 13, the swedish government announced measures to guarantee bank debt and inject capital into banks. the rapidly worsening crisis soon spread beyond financial students into the money and capital markets more generally. as a result of losses of lehman brothers' commercial paper, a prominent money-market mutual fund announced on september 16 that it had "broken -" -- its

net asset value fell below $1 per share. conditions in short-term funding markets included the interbank market and commercial paper market, deteriorating sharply. equity markets fell precipitously and credit risk spreads jumped. the crisis began to affect countries that had thus far escaped the worst effects. notably, financial markets in emerging market economies were whipsawed as a flight from risk that capital inflows in those countries to switch abruptly to outflows. authorities in the united states and around the globe moved quickly to respond to this latest phase of the crisis, all the details differ according to the financial systems. the financial system of the united states gives a much greater role to financial markets and non-bank financial instead titian's than is the case in most other nations, which rely primarily on banks.

thus in the united states, a wider variety of policies were needed than in other nations. the federal reserve established new liquidity facilities with the goal of restoring basic functioning in various critical markets. on september 19, the fed announced a method to stabilize money mutual funds. on october 7, the fed announced the backstop commercial paper facility. together, these steps helped to stem massive outflows of money market mutual funds and to stabilize the commercial paper market. during this time, foreign commercial banks were a source of heavy demand for u.s. dollar funding, thereby putting additional strain on a global bank funding markets, including u.s. markets, and for this reason credit availability in the united states. -- and a further squeezing

credit availability in the united states. the united states established a new temporary swap lines with central banks and september, and five more in october, including four in emerging market economies. and it further coordinated action on october 8, with the federal reserve and five central banks simultaneously cutting their rates. substantial fiscal resources were necessary. on october 3, on the recommendation of the administration and the strong support of the federal reserve, the congress approved the creation of the troubled asset relief program, or tarp, to support the stabilization of the financial system. markets remain highly volatile, the pressure on financial

institutions was intense through the first week of october. on october 10, in what would prove to be a watershed in the global policy response, the group of seven finance ministers and central bank governors meeting here in washington committed in a joint statement to work together to stabilize the global financial system. in particular, they agreed to prevent the failure of systemic important financial institutions to ensure that financial institutions had adequate capital and access to funding, including public capital if necessary, and to put in place a deposit insurance and other guarantees to restore the confidence of depositors. in the following days, many countries around the world announced a comprehensive rescue plans for their banking systems that built on the g-7 principles. to stabilize funding during october, more than 20 countries expanded the deposit insurance programs, and many also guaranteed non-deposit liabilities on banks. in addition, amid mounting

concerns about the solvency of the global banking system, by the end of october, more than a dozen countries announced plans to inject capital into banks, and several announced plans to purchase or guarantee bank assets. the comprehensive united states response, announced in october 14, include a capital injections to large and small banks by the treasury, a program that allowed banks and bank holding companies for a fee to issue fdic guaranteed debt, the extension of deposit insurance to all non-interest bearing transaction deposits of any size, and that but for reserve's continued commitment to provide liquidity necessary to stabilize the financial institutions and markets. this strong and unprecedented international policy response proved broadly effective. critically, it averted the imminent collapse of the global financial system, an outcome that seemed all too possible to finance ministers and central bankers that gathered in

washington on october 10. however, although the crisis's intensity has moderated, and the risk of systemic collapse decline in the wake of a policy response, financial conditions remained highly stressed. for example, although short-term funding spreads in global markets began to turn out in october, they remain elevated into this year. all the generalized pressures of a financial institutions subsided somewhat, government actions to prevent disorderly failures of individual, systemically significant institutions, continue to be necessary. in the united states, support packages were announced for citigroup in november, and bank of america in january. roblin similar support packages were announced for -- the large for broadly similar support package -- roughly similar support packages were announced for other institutions. the financial shots of september and october nevertheless severely damaged the global

economy, a starkly illustrating the potential effects of financial stress on real economic activity. in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the first quarter of this year, global economic activity reported its weakest performance in decades. in the united states, real gdp plummeted at a 6% annual pace over those two quarters. an even sharper decline than had occurred in the 1981-1982 recession. economic activity dropped more precipitously and other economies. -- in other economies. the crisis affected economic activity by pushing down asset prices and tightening credit conditions, and also a shattering household and business confidence around the world. in response to these developments, the fed reserve expanded its remaining ammunition in the traditional arsenal on to a policy by bringing the federal funds rate

down in steps to a target range of zero to 25 basis points as of december of last year. it took several measures to supplement its traditional arsenal. in particular, on november 25, the fed announced it would purchase up to $100 billion of debt released by the tse -- gse 's, programs expanded substantially and augmented by treasury purchases in march. the goal of these purchases was to provide additional support [unintelligible] to private credit markets, particularly the mortgage market. -- provide additional support to private credit markets, particularly the mortgage market. the fed also announced the creation of talf, to help facilitate the financing and refinancing of commercial real estate properties. talf has shown early success in

reducing risk spreads and stimulating new securitization activity for assets included in this program. a foreign central banks also cut policy rates to very low levels and implemented on conventional policy responses. for example, the bank of japan began purchasing commercial paper in december and corporate bonds in january. in march, the bank of england announced it would purchase government securities, commercial paper, and corporate bonds, and the swiss national bank announced it would purchase corporate bonds and foreign currency. for its part, the ecb injected 100 million euros in a single auction in late june. the began purchasing cover bonds, bonds issued by financial institutions and guaranteed by specific asset pools. actions by central banks, and to the larger fiscal stimulus packages in the indebted states, -- actions by central banks augmented the larger fiscal stimulus packages in the united states and china and other

countries. timothy geithner unveiled the outlines of a new strategy for ensuring that banking institutions could continue to provide credit to households and businesses during the financial crisis. essential component of that strategy was the exercise and came to be known as the bank stress test. under this initiative, the banking regulatory agencies and took a forward looking, simultaneous evaluation of the capital positions of 19 of the largest bank holding companies in the united states, with the treasury committee to provide -- treasury committing it to provide public capital if needed the goal was to ensure that the equity held by these firms was sufficient in quantity and quality to allow the institutions to withstand a worse-than-expected economic environment over two years and yet remain healthy and capable of lending to creditworthy borrowers. this exercise, unprecedented in scale and scope, was led by the federal reserve in cooperation with the office of the comptroller of the currency and

the fdic. the agency's report made public considerable information on the projected losses and revenues of the 19 firms, allowing private analysts to judge for themselves the credibility of the exercise. in to market participants responded favorably to the announcement of the results, and many of the tested banks was subsequently able to tap the capital markets. overall, the policy actions implemented in recent months have helped stabilize a number of key financial markets both in the and and states and abroad. short-term funding markets are functioning normally, corporate bond issuance has been strong, and activity in previous the moribund securitization market has picked up. stock prices has partially recovered, and u.s. mortgage rates have declined markedly since last fall. the fears of a financial collapse of receded substantially. after contracting sharply over the past year, economic activity

appears to be leveling out in the united states and abroad, and the prospects for a return to growth in the near term appear to be good. notwithstanding the noteworthy progress, critical challenges remain. strains persist in many financial markets across the globe, financial institutions face significant additional losses, and many businesses and households continue to experience considerable difficulty in gaining access to credit. because of these and other factors, the economic recovery is likely to be relatively slow at first, with unemployment declining only gradually from high levels. how should we interpret these extraordinary events of the past year, particularly the sharp and dedication of the financial crisis in september and october -- sharp intensification of the financial crisis in september and october? fundamentals played a critical role in triggering those events. the economy was already in recession and weaken further in the summer. the continued to decline in

house prices and foreclosure raised serious questions about housing-related assets. more broadly, investors remained distrustful of all forms of private credit, especially private credit markets and opaque incidents. the events of september and october exhibited features of a classic panic, a type described by many people. the panic possibly result in the failure of one or more institutions. the most familiar types of panic, runs on banks by retail depositors, has been made largely obsolete by deposit insurance and guarantees and the government's supervision of banks. but a panic as possible in any situation where a longer term in

liquid assets are financed by short-term liquid liabilities, and suppliers of short-term funding either lose confidence in the borrower or become worried that other short-term lenders may lose confidence. in a certain sense, a panic may be collected the irrational, but it may be entirely rational at the individual level, as each market participant has a strong incentive to be among the first to exit. panics are rose at a multiple contacts of last year -- arose in multiple contacts of last year. many institutions financed a portion of their assets through short-term repo agreements. in repo agreements, the asset being financed serves as a collateral for the loan. the maximum amount of the loan is the current assessed value of the collateral, less a hair cut. in a crisis, and markets typically rise and short-term lenders attempt to protect -- have pets typically rise and short-term letters attempt to protect themselves from loss in asset prices, but this can said

it run like dynamic. as high haircuts make financing difficult, some have no option but to sell assets into illiquid markets. it in turn increases the risks borne by riegel lenders and increases the -- repo lenders and increases the haircuts they demand. there is particularly sharply during the bursting of the crisis in mid to temper. -- they rose particularly sharply during the worsening of the crisis in mid-september. it can create financial contagion, even between firms without significant counter party relationships. the line between solvency and illiquidity can be quite

blurry. structured investment vehicles and other asset backed programs that rely heavily on the commercial paper market began to have difficulty rolling over the short-term funding very early in the crisis, forcing them to the bank's losses for liquidity or to sell assets. panic gripped the money market mutual fund and commercial paper market. bonds and unsecured lenders created severe problems for a number of financial firms but runs the creditors were augmented by other types of runs. for example, prime brokerage customers added best in banks concerned about margins they help -- prime bridge customers at investment banks concerned about margins they held. the abrupt deterioration in financial conditions was largely to a forecasted by standard market indicators. -- largely unforecasted by

standard market indicators. bagehot instructed central banks, the only institutions that have the power to increase liquidity in the system, to lend freely against some collateral. >> we will show the rest of this later. the house will come together for general speeches. legislative work begins at noon. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the spooments, washington, d.c., september 15, 2009. i hereby appoint the honorable jackie speier to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the

chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. these times demand that congress and the administration do more than one thing at a time. health care, energy, dealing with the economic downturn, and near financial meltdown inherited by the new administration, one challenge needs more attention. rebuilding and renewing america. our fraying infrastructure has been a growing problem for years. the american society of civil engineers has rated our overall

infrastructure with a grade of d. and has done so repeatedly. it is one of those rare important issues that actually unites people rather than dividing them. water and transportation investments are overwhelmingly supported by the public across the board from coast to coast. and a majority of republicans, democrats, and independents would increase their taxes to get this job done. rebuilding and renewing america will make a huge difference in both the economy and the everyday quality of life of americans. the economic recovery package we passed early in the year was an important step to stop the economic free fall. i would hate to think what my state of oregon would be facing without the $6 billion for education, health care,

unemployment, and infrastructure. it was very important for the state of oregon and for states across the country, important but not enough. the perfect next step is to re-authorize and fund the next transportation bill which expires in 15 days. our transportation and infrastructure committee has been hard at work. they have developed a great outline for the new legislation. but the highway trust fund would fund that new vision faces a significant shortfall. our recent stopgap efforts to plug the hole just adds to the long-term deficit without the certainty that communities and contractors need to start needed big projects. in the short-term, the house should come together, work with the senate, and pass a

short-term extension of four to six months that will allow us to get the big bill and the funding in order. in the meantime, every member ought to take advantage of this opportunity to involve people back home in this critical discussion. people from the private sector, from their local chamber, contractors, unions, the local community leadership all being part of this movement to rebuild and renew america. this is the fastest way to get the economy on track, to improve the environment, put people to work, and make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller, for five minutes. mrs. miller: madam speaker, the american health care system is

clearly in need of reform. yet at the same time our system of health care continues to be be the envy of the world in producing lifesaving innovations in the pharmaceutical industry, in medical procedures, and in treatment. congress certainly must act to help bring down costs and expand access to health insurance while preserving the quality of care patients receive in this great, great nation. i have heard many of my democratic colleagues and certainly the president speak about the need to increase competition in the health insurance marketplace to help reduce cost, and i could not agree more. but where i part company with my democratic lesion is in their prescription for the problem. the way they want to increase competition is to create a new government insurance company better known as the public option, to provide this competition. they have demonized insurance companies in an effort to build support for this misguided plan even though recent public opinion surveys have shown over 80% of americans are satisfied with their current plan. my concerns with the public

option which are shared i think by huge amounts of americans is that it would have an unfair advantage could crowd out private health care and it would put huge new costs on the american taxpayers. for months the president has said if you like what you have, you can keep it. then just last week the president changed that and he said instead, there is nothing in this bill that would force you or your employer to change what you have. well, it may be true that nothing will force you or your employer into the public option, but the bill before the house has perverse incentives to encourage your employer to do just that. the bill mandates individuals to purchase insurance and it requires large employers to provide care for their employees. businesses that do not provide health care insurance will be taxed at 8% of their payroll as a penalty. most employers will tell you that health care costs typically run about 14 to 16%

-- 14% to 16% of their payroll. businesses that are suggestling to make ends meet will face a choice, pay 15% of their payroll to provide coverage, or dump them on to the public plan and take the 8% penalty. that is a pretty easy business decision to make. unfortunately it has very broad implications for their employers and i believe this nation will go to a government-run health care plan very, very quickly as a result of that. madam speaker, there is a better way to reduce the cost of insurance at virtually no cost to the government and that is to simply allow individuals and businesses to purchase health care insurance across state lines. lifting this restriction would bring hundreds if not thousands of new competitors into the private marketplace to compete for business. this would absolutely reduce costs and it's a simple change which we could enact immediately. the president actually made an analogy to private auto insurance and i would respectfully remind the president that auto insurance

can be purchased across state lines and there is no public option in auto insurance. the market regulates itself to keep costs down. additionally, millions of americans today have their health care covered by a health savings account. if h.r. 32 is enacted, health savings accounts will be gone and those who utilize them will be forced to change their coverage. so again this is actually less choice and less competition than the health care industry. i was very glad last week when the president said he would look at pilot programs with regard to medical liability reform. for too long trial attorneys have looked at doctors at a.t.m. machines and filed countless frivolous lawsuits. this has driven up costs by forcing insurance companies to settle because these suits cost too much to fight regardless of their merit and the costs are passed along to doctors in the form of higher premiums and ultimately higher health insurance costs to consumers. it's also made it very difficult for specialty doctors like ob/gyn's to practice and

limits practice in rural areas. many states have enacted caps on noneconomic damages and in every place where this has happened, doctors have moved in, lawyers have moved out, and cost vs. gone down. so i was very disappointed when the president said over the weekend that he doesn't believe caps work. respectfully, mr. president, actually caps on noneconomic damages is -- that actually is medical liability reform. madam speaker, the american people are rightfully concerned about how any reform will impact out-of-control federal spending and our exploding federal deficit. it just stretches credibility when people are told that we can create a public option, expand access, and availability of care and we can do so without dramatically increasing taxes or adding to the federal debt. you can't get something for nothing, particularly when the government is involved. and many seniors find it difficult to believe that we can pay for some of this by

reducing spending on medicare by $600 billion and more and not impact their level of care. the proponents say these cuts are just waste, fraud, and abuse. if there is that much waste, fraud, and abuse, we should be attacking that. madam speaker, we can do better and for the sake of the american people, we must do better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i rise to inter-- introduce the children's act for responsible employment, better known as the care act. this month millions of children across the country are returning to school. after meeting their teachers and reconnecting with friends, they will launch headlong into their studies. absent from our nation's classroom, however, will be thousands of children who instead of going to school will be working in the fields and/or chards of our country.

-- and orr chards of our country. these are not children of local farmers but hired hands who travel from crop to crop to help their family make ends meet. these children who help put food on our table start school late and continue to work long hours leaving them little time or energy to do their homework. if previous years are any guide, some of these students will miss one out of every six days of school. the results are predictable. studies show that 50% of youth who regularly perform farmwork drop out of school. the consequences of this high dropout rate are tragic. in addition to these children being deprived of educational opportunities which could help them escape a lifetime of being stooped over in a hot sun, picking fruits and vegetables, it deprives our country of the talents and potential contributions of these young children.

adding to their heartbreaking circumstances is the fact that our labor laws do not protect them equally. not only do they earn subminimum wages, but under current law, the children of agriculture are allowed to use hazardous farm equipment and work in an environment that continually exposes them to poisonous pesticides which can lead to serious injury or even death. these dangerous and exploited conditions which are illegal for children in every other industry, simply do not reflect the precious value we americans place on children. i am introducing the care act to reflect our value. the care act raises labor be standards for farm worker children to the same level as those for children in all other occupations. specifically the bill raises the minimum age for working in

agriculture to 14 and restricts children under 16 from working when it interferes with their education or endangers their health and well-being. the care act also prohibits children under the age of 18 from agricultural work that the department of labor has specified as particularly hazardous. this is consistent with current law governing all industries outside of agriculture. the care act also requires employers to document the injuries, illness, and death of these young people. this documentation will enable the department of labor to monitor and protect children working in agriculture from exploitation and dangerous work conditions. and finally, to help ensure compliance with the bill's protective measures, the care act sets a minimum fine of $500 for child labor violations and a maximum fine of $15,000.

madam speaker, it is our moral obligation to do all we can to protect the rights, the safety, and the educational future of our most precious resource, our children. the care act is a positive step toward meeting that obligation. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor and help pass the children's act for responsible employment known as the care act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. in a recent article conservative commentator thomas sole, a african-american, examined some of president obama's claims about the health care reform legislation moving through the congress. i wanted to quote some excerpts from his column i found to be

insightful. he writes in his joint address to congress president obama is wrong about the spending levels of his health care reform. he says, quote, to tell us with a straight face can he insure millions more people without adding to the already sproketting deficit is world class chutzpah and insult to anyone's intelligence. to do so after an analysis by the congressional budget office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words. sole continues along this the accounting line by addressing the issue of paying for the health infrastructure implied in the president's health reform plan. he writes, even those who can believe that obama can conjure up the money from eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" should ask himself where he's going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses, and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients. if he can't pull off that miracle, then government-run medical care in the united

states can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in canada, britain, and other countries has produced. delays of weeks or months to get many treatments, not to mention arbitrary rationing decision by bureaucrats. sole later draws a parallel to the difference in the words and needs of president obama and other areas of policy. he writes, obama can deny it words but what matters are deeds. and no one's words have been more repeatedly the direct opposite of his deeds whether talking about how his election campaign would be financed, how he would not rush legislation through congress, or how his administration was not going after c.i.a. agents for their past efforts to extract information from captured terrorists. president obama has also declared emphatically he will not interfere in the internal affairs ever other nations, while telling the israelis where they can and cannot build settlements and telling the hondurans whom they should and should not choose to be their president. then sole writes that president obama tells us he will impose

various mandates on insurance companies but will not interfere with our free choice between being insured by these companies or by the government. . if he can drive up the health insurance with mandates and taxpayers money, how long do you think it will be before we have the single-payer system that he has advocated in the past? mandates by politicians is what have driven up the cost of insurance already. politicians love to play santa claus and leave it to others to raise prices to cover the inevitable cost. sowell concludes by noting that no matter of lofty rhetoric about certain policies not coming to pass will convince many americans that those same policies will not in fact occur because of the intrusive nature of government-run health care. as sowell says, barack obama's insistence that various dangerous policies are not in the legislation he proposes sounds good but means nothing.

unbrightled power is a blank check, no matter what its ration national -- rational may be. furthermore, in the bill, an analysis of the bill by objective agencies tell us that the democrats' health care bill will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. the bill includes $1.2 trillion in new federal spending over the next 10 years. the democrats' bill spends so much that it needs eight years of higher taxes to finance just six years of spending. the democrats embedded an automatic tax increase in their bill by doubling the 1% and 1.5% small business tax in 2013, continuing their revenue fwrab from small businesses. 4.7 million jobs could be lost as a result of pay or play taxes on small businesses. the prescription of the health

care bill from the democrats and the president is wrong, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes, mr. connelly. mr. connelly: madam speaker, i rise today because in the health care debate, the voices and stories of real americans have been drowned out. drowned out by misinformation, fear mongering and just outright demagoguery. if we listening to the stories, we hear families struggling to pay health care costs. we hear of individuals denied coverage due to a previous existing medical condition. and we hear of individuals left without health insurance. it's time we heard their voices. in my district, the wealthiest in the nation, as measured by median household income,

families are struggling with the rapid increase of health care costs. recently, i met with a family of four from fairfax county whose health insurance premiums rose from 2001 at $4,000 pr year to 2009 at $18,000 per year. let me repeat that. in the space of seven years their cost went from $4,000 a year for health insurance premiums to $18,000. that's a 450% increase, madam speaker. in the same time period, coincidently, the profits of the largest insurers in this country rose 428%. in fact, over the past decade, the average health insurance premium has almost doubled, increasing nearly three times as much as wages. and they're still rising. health insurance premiums are anticipated to increase 10.5% this year. this means a projected increase of almost $2,000 for the family i met next year. so while the insurance

companies reap the benefits of a failing system, millions of families across the nation just like this family in fairfax with whom i met are waking up every day worrying how much longer will they be able to afford to protect their families with health care insurance. and what, madam speaker, of the millions of americans with previous existing conditions, gallstones, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, even severe acne has been described as a previously existing condition by some health insurance companies. in fact, 45% of all of us who have health insurance have a previous existing medical condition, and if we're lucky to live long enough, virtually nearly all of us will have a previous existing medical condition and at risk of not being covered by health insurance providers. if you have a previous existing condition, they will deny that specific illness or worse, drop you altogether.

millions of americans face this every year. millions find they're not insured. who's listening to their voices? madam speaker, i know of a young paraplegic, the victim of a virus that attacked his spinal column and therefore frequently has medical complications. he went to five insurance companies looking for coverage. he knew he was at greater health care risk and was prepared to piatt higher premium for that. all five insurers denied him coverage at all. no health care coverage whatsoever. due to a previous existing condition, he had no chance for insurance and he's not alone. that's why we must ensure that insurance companies end the practice of cherry picking only healthy individuals and denying people with previous existing health conditions. they often lack true choice in providers. health insurance operates through risk pools. the larger the pool of people paying insurance premiums, the greater the insurance companies

can balance the risk of having to pay out for the sick of the injured. unfortunately, between 2007 and 2008, the number of uninsured among the 18 to 34 age bracket traditionally the healthiest group in our society increased by 635% or -- 630,000 or 3.5%. in other words, younger people were less covered by health insurance in that time period. those of us remaining in the health pool paid more as a result for our insurance premiums. we're taking on new customers. insurance companies have often been far more willing to provide better coverage for larger groups. even with companies with 1,000 individuals represents a smaller coverage. most workers have the option of just one or two insurance providers. that's not competition. and for those working for a small business, the options are even fewer. now, only 43% of all small

businesses in america often health insurance to their employees because they can't afford it. as health care premiums continue to rise, more and more companies drop coverage and more and more americans find themselves without health care coverage. so what happens to those americans, madam speaker, whose jobs no longer provide insurance? what happens to those americans who are self-employed or working part time? their voices have been drowned out in this debate, and i think it's time we heard from them. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: madam speaker, one year ago yesterday, a major investment bank, lehman brothers, declared bankruptcy, a move which sent the dow jones tumbling 500 points and simply led to a chain of events in which the federal government nationalized a.i.g. at $189 billion in bailout. the american auto industry

asked congress to authorize help, hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out them. banks did the same thing. private institutions across this country asked for support. today, just one year later, our federal government is in control of practically every sector of our economy having spent almost $800 billion or 5% of our g.d.p. on a stimulus pamages that pork laden and is still working to create jobs and to boost this economy. and most alarmingly, nothing has been done to cure the culture of bailouts that our government with the help of the federal reserve has continued to perpetuate. bailout after bailout is not a strategy for economic recovery. my colleagues, we are at a critical point in our nation's economic history. financial regulatory reform proposals are being discussed here in congress and across this country. we all agree the reform is certainly needed, but unfortunately the plan put forth by the obama

administration is not the kind of reform that will put an end to the culture, this culture of bailouts, nor will it bring transparency to the opaque and ever, ever expanding federal reserve. in fact, it does just the opposite. in june of this year, treasury secretary geithner unveiled the administration's plan for financial regulatory reform. and the cornerstone of the proposal is centered on ceding vast new powers to the federal reserve as a means of preventing future financial crisises. but this overreliance on the federal reserve is unwise. history shows us that in time the fed saved us from one crisis, it inadvertently instigated another one. in 1913 when the fed was founded it was intentionally set up to serve as an institution that could help cushion the blow when bank crieses -- crisises occurred. however, an institution that is designed to insulate banks from the consequences of their own

poor investment decisions is that it also inadvertently encourages these same banks to keep taking unwise risk, thereby laying the groundwork for a vicious cycle of bailout after bailout. in fact, every time there's a potential financial crisis, the federal open market committee quickly cuts short-term interest rates. these cuts have become larger over time as evidence by our current 0% interest rates. and more importantly, these cuts essentially function as a bailout to banks and have run into -- those banks have run into financial problems. banks know they can count on the fed to lower interest rates during times of financial distress and markets know the fed is always prepared to provide loose credit to finance years facing big losses. now, what lessons have the banks learned from the financial crisis? the truth is if they get into trouble the fed will be there to lend unlimited amounts of money at extremely low interest

rates. so where's the motivation then for cushing risky behavior by these banks? the only one on the proverbial financial hook under a current financial bailout system is you the taxpayer. yesterday, president obama gave a speech on financial reform at federal hall on wall street. ironically, federal hall is where the founders of our great nation once bitterly argued over how much the government should control the national economy. in his speech the president warned wall street that they shouldn't ignore the lessons from the past financial and current financial crisis. they shouldn't become complacent and expect future bailouts, yet the financial regulatory plan, the plan the president's committee is asking for is -- the fed is a bailout machine for the financial sector. clearly, there's discrepancy between the president's rhetoric and the reality of the policies.

in 55 b.c., the great roman statesman cicero wisely state, quote, the budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be redecembered, the -- reduced, the arrogance should be controlled and the assistance of foreign lands should be curtails, less rome will become bankrupt. my colleagues, looking on the one-year anniversary of the lehman brothers bankruptcy, we would do well to heed cicero's advice and seek out financial reform policy that will steer away from the practice of bailouts and the policies that will bankrupt future generation. my colleagues, america's too great a country to not learn from its past mistakes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon.

>> i do not think it is an understatement to say that this building would not be here if that had not be for the persistence of chief justice taft. >> supreme court week with insights from historians and the justices. go on line now for a virtual tour of the court. >> on friday, president obama impose tariffs on tires being imported from china. a discussion from this morning's "washington journal."

host: our guest is nicholas lardy, senior fellow at the peterson in this to us at the peterson institute for international economics. first of all, refresh our memory about what happened last friday, when president obama decided to do. guest: president obama acted in response to a recommendation from the international trade commission, an independent government body that looked into the case brought by the steelworkers union, complaining about the substantial increase of import of chinese tires in the last three years. he put tariffs on for three years, a slightly lower level and the commission recommended. host: he was able to do so because of a specific ability countries have to do with china and that way. this is the law that allowed that specifically to deal with china. guest: that is right. china agreed to a provision that no other country agreed to, which allows the united states

and all other members of the wto to put restrictions on chinese goods if there is a surge of sales of chinese goods into a country like the united states. the key thing is, this is called a safeguard. the standard safeguard case, the petitioner has to prove injury to the domestic industry as a result of the surge. for this particular provision, you do not have to prove any injury. all you have to do is show market disruption, which is shown by a big increase in imports. host: what was then imposed on china, and why did china agreed to it? guest: a few other countries and united states insisted we have this extra tool to deal with china. in part, the worry was that china is not completely a market economy yet. the government might have the ability to promote exports of certain products and need an extra tool to respond. the chinese agreed because they did not have much choice.

the chinese premier at the time very much wanted china to become a member of the world trade organization and was trying to use membership as a lever for promoting domestic economic reform in china, so he agreed to this provision and a number of others that are unique to china. host: this is a first time an american president enacted this? guest: this is the first time this provision has ever been used. it has been available since late 2001 in china became a member, and china was hoping that it had never been invoked. it has not been invoked up until now. one of the reasons the chinese have acted fairly shrilly was disappointed that this was being used, and also the fear that it could be applied to a lot of other products. host: how much trade do we do with china, and how strong are our tariffs purses their tariffs? guest: we're the largest single export market for china, so the

bilateral trade volumes are in the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. both countries have relatively low tariffs. china's were brought down as a consequence of this negotiation to come into the world trade organization. the united states has had relatively low tariffs for a number of years, so we're talking average tariff levels of under 10%. for example, tires were subject to a 4% tariff before this action was taken. now they are adding another 35% in the first year, so the tariff will be close to 40%. it will be a prohibitive tariffs. no tires will be coming in from china once this takes effect, which will be almost immediately. host: you can take part in the conversation. democrats line is 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205.

we are also on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj. and our e-mail, journal@c- span.org. al as on the line from delaware. caller: it has to do with the 1938 act where in the government of the united states levy these penalties against imports that is detrimental to the united states market. they are not doing that, so what is happening is that most shipments or in pmports are being brought into this country at a rate assisted by the government. the 1930 act was to bring it back on the basis that was equal or beneficial to the united states. they are not doing that.

there is a flood of foreign goods coming in that prompted the outside investors, manufacturers are making. coming back to this country as revenue. it moves elsewhere. guest: it is true that this action has been taken under a different provision called a safeguard provision, section 421. it is directed against, so far, the single product of tires, rather than across the board at all manufactured exports coming from china. so this is a narrow lead focus trade action that was taken by the president friday night. host: let's look at this piece in "the washington post close " today.

"traders fretted that the 35% tariffs might prompt china to send a sign of disapproval by paring purchases of u.s. government bonds. and a chorus of economists and climate activists fretted that the president's action might undercut u.s.-china climate talks and poison relations in a few weeks before the g20 in pittsburgh. when might the fallout be from this decision? guest: the chinese are upset that this provision has been used for the first time, and they are taking a lot of domestic criticism for this, asking the question, why did our government signed up for what they see as a discriminatory provision? no other country has agreed to this, and what are you going to do about it? so the pressure domestically, politically, is to take some strong countervailing retaliatory action.

they have talked about investigating the possibility of putting some restrictions on chicken and auto parts, but they have not actually done anything yet. the other good piece of evidence is of course they have filed a complaint with the wto about the u.s. actions, so it will be subject to review within the wto, a process that will take some time and hopefully allow the pressure to diffuse within china so it becomes a more manageable issue. if that does not happen, yes, it could be harder for the chinese to compromise. they might be less willing to work with us on some of the key international economic issues. they might be less willing to work with us on iran, north korea, and so forth. the costs could be high. the other thing to keep in mind is that u.s.-china relations are relatively in a good state leading up to this in this case, so i think we have a reservoir of goodwill to draw on. the relationship is in a very strong position, and hopefully

that will provide enough ballast to get us through this without a trade war and without high costs in the non-economic areas, in the strategic areas, including climate change. host: you mentioned chicken and the auto industry. why are those potential targets? guest: they know they are sensitive industries in the united states, and if they actually moved in these areas, it would be costly to the u.s.. host: let's go to lanonnie on te independent line from jacksonville, florida. caller: the thing that really upsets me about our government, all the vietnam and korean soldiers that died, they died in vain because our government told us at that time we were fighting communism. now, as countries hold most of our debt. -- now, communist countries hold most of our debt.

thank you. guest: it is true that we borrow a lot of money from china, and china is the biggest creditor to our country, so we have this debtor-creditor relationship. the chinese, however, did not force us to borrow all this money. we bought this on by the result of our own spending habits, and as long as a country we are not saving very much and we want to invest in order to grow the economy, we have to borrow to finance that. we borrowed to finance a lot of excess consumption. so with households saving little or nothing in the run-up to the crisis and the government running a deficit, is the savings were not enough to finance everything they needed to do, so we had to borrow. so we may not like the position that we are in, but we brought it on ourselves. host: is there much conversation in washington right now about trying to reduce that? is that even in the scope, given all the other financial issues and play?

guest: it has not been widely noticed, but our need to borrow abroad has been falling over the last couple of years. the peak need to borrow was in 2006 when our external deficit hit a peak and we needed to finance by borrowing. it has come down in 2007 and 2008, and it will come down further this year. we are still borrowing, going deeper in debt, but not as fast a pace as we were two or three years ago. host: but to go to cathy, calling on the republicans line from new york state. caller: good morning. we have had a trade imbalance for a long time. first with japan, now with china. my biggest concern is china now has been borrowing a lot of our u.s. treasuries, securities, and this is to shore up our economy. the federal government has not done much for this trade imbalance.

what is going to be the long- term effect? and i think of it as loansharking. with political leveraging in congress? are we going to be able to do what we need to do if we owe them so much money? guest: well, this is a complicated question, and i am not sure i agree that it is loansharking. china is not earning very much on most of these treasury obligations they have purchased. they're getting 1% to 2% at the most. there are holding a lot of our debt, but they are not earning very much. as to whether or not they gain leverage over us, it is a complicated picture. they potentially have leverage over us, but to exercise it they would have to start selling those securities. that would bring down the price and they would take a large loss. they have such a huge stock of these assets, they could not sell them overnight. once they began to sell, prices

would fall and they would suffer very substantial losses. so it is very unlikely that they will sell those assets, and even diet -- they have never threatened to sell them. some domestic critics of the chinese government has said they should sell them, but that has not happened. i think it is unlikely to happen because it is a shooting yourself in the foot type of situation to impose costs on the united states. united states. that would have to host: a piece in the financial times represents what you mentioned, that beijing is launching an investigation. it also requested formal consultations at the world trade organization into tariffs. what they know is that trade experts and lawyers the showed the increasingly sophisticated legal strategies used by beijing

in its many disputes with trading partners and the way it maximizes political effect while trying to limit the actual economic damage. guest: i think that isn't fair assessment. china does want to play by the rules for the most part. they may cut a few corners occasionally, but their basic goal is to play by the rules, so they are filing a complaint to see what recourse they have in the legal process. they're not doing a unilateral retaliation, immediately imposing such stiff restrictions on u.s. exports to china. they could not do that legally. they could have an investigation into car parts and chicken and determine whether they have a possibility of legally doing this, but this is a process that will take some months to investigate. it is very unlikely we will have a very rapidly escalating trade

war because china is refraining from taking unilateral action that would be inconsistent with its obligation. natasha is on the democrats' line from michigan. caller: good morning. not too long ago on the david hartman show, i heard a gentleman speaking about tariffs and how -- i cannot remember whether it was in the 1930's or earlier -- that the united states' tariffs on things really were a substantial part of our budget, so therefore we did not have to go into debt as much. now, my contention is buy and make in america. the comptroller, david walker, who retired a year ago or so -- are you involved with him? guest: he is running what is called the peterson foundation, and i am working at an organization called the peterson institute for

international economics, and they are separate organizations. caller: i always enjoyed seeing him on c-span. one thing that struck me is that he said our pentagon folks were unauditable. our defense budget was so huge, it is much more than 10 times all the countries the money that we're spending on defense here. i personally am not afraid of anybody coming in and hurting america. i say that as a mother of a 9/11 person, and i think we have to get our house in order. i remember one time not too long ago, bill clinton said, how do you treat china? he said in the morning you go and you say, would you buy some of our debt or our bonds? in the afternoon you are expected to go there and behave.

and to say we do not like what you are doing. you cannot do business that way. guest: i very much agree with the premise of your question, which is we would be in a much stronger position if our own house was in order, and certainly there is the fiscal dimension of that that is quite important. we are running massive deficits, our government debt is skyrocketing. it is a major burden on future generations, and it is very risky given the levels that we're headed toward. i certainly agree with you that a top priority of our government should be to bring our debt down, either by reducing government expenditures or raising taxes. those two alternatives are very unpopular frequently, so people in general agree that you do not want to have the big gatt, but -- to have a big debt, but when you raise taxes to have a smaller debt, it loses support rapidly.

host: our guest, nicholas lardy, is a senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics, and he has two books. let's go to jackie on the independent line in east lake, ohio. caller: good morning. we have a very huge trade deficit with china over the past 10 years. it is pushing toward $2 trillion. the trade deficit with mexico and japan, canada, and some of the european countries, has cost the downgrading of our jobs and the loss of revenue, revenue that we have, and therefore causing large deficits here in our country. everyone keeps talking about we have got to treat china with kid gloves, however, china has taken

intellectual properties from us. they spy on us, and they have been caught several times. and we sit on our hands and do nothing because our corporate structure in this country has so eroded our ability to manufacture, our ability to do for our own country because of their constant coupling with china over manufacturing. guest: well, we do face competition from china and other countries in manufacturing, but i think it is also useful to keep in mind that if you look at the united states manufacturing position overall, we are still a very strong manufacturing country. our share of global manufacturing output is about 25%.

it is far and away the largest of any country in the world, and most importantly, that share has not declined significantly over the last decade or so. in other words, we're holding our own in manufacturing. most people do not appreciate that because the headlines go to industries that are shrinking or facing difficulty or suffering competition. in the new industries that are emerging that are keeping our overall manufacturing position so strong get much less coverage. the average american does not understand that the u.s. share of global manufacturing output has been relatively stable over the last decade or so, and we are in a very strong position. the nature of the jobs is changing, the jobs that existed 10 years ago that do not necessarily exist today -- we're still number 1 in global manufacturing by a very wide margin. host: who is helped by president obama's decision on friday? guest: i think this is one of

the least understood aspects of this case. i do not think anyone will be helped by his decision. consumers will not be helped because in the short run they will pay more for tires that we get from china. it will not create many jobs because, remember, this unique safeguard provision applies only to china, so there will be no restrictions on tire imports coming from mexico, brazil, india, and another of other potential suppliers. they may not be able to ramp up production overnight, but in a short period of time i would expect to see tire imports from those countries increasing, and they will be subject to the 4% tariff that exists for all suppliers except for china. so i think it is very unlikely that the steelworkers' union is going to gain a lot of jobs. from the economic point of view, the president's decision is completely irrational. there are going to be very

little gains, and consumers will pay more. so across the economy at a whole -- so across the economy as a whole, it is a big loss. host: and "usa today," david lynch writes "15000 workers in u.s. tire plants have lost jobs since 2004. about 31,000 production jobs remain. last year china shipped to the u.s. auto tires and trends worth $2 billion, more than triple 2004's $593 million. the president is addressing the afl-cio today. do you think the timing of this was tied into that, or was the timing more geared because of the timeline of events? guest: i think the timing is a coincidence, but the unions are supporting his decision because they hope it sets a precedent, so that when other cases come

before the president, he will react in a similar fashion. host: let's go to fred on the republicans line, calling from toledo, ohio. caller: good morning. my name is fred. i was calling about the tariff on tires. i think what a lot of people are neglecting to see, the chinese do not even make a quality screwdriver. about approximately a year ago, there was a problem with chinese dry wall that was produced with all kinds of contamination. those people that rebuild down in florida and down south, when the hurricane hit, they had to redo everything because all the contaminated drive all that they bought from china. my concern is that they cannot

even make a screwdriver, and we are going to be risking our lives on chinese tires? i think that is the biggest problem. everybody wants something cheap. host: well, the chinese are supplying what we have to call the low end of the tire market. the u.s. is still a strong -- the u.s. is still in a strong position over quality products manufactured in the united states. the chinese are going opeafter a certain segment of the market. there is a demand for tires of that type, and you or i or other people might decry that, but not everyone is going to go out and buy the most expensive tire available because they think it is safer. i think the reality is we support consumer choice. the tires of course are regulated by u.s. safety agencies, so they have to meet minimal standards. the only way to address this

would be to change the standards at which tires are sold in this country. it is not a question of the country of origin, but the quality and characteristics of the product itself. that could be changed and could be raised to address the concern that you have. i think the concern that some people have on the seaside that you did not mention is that -- on the side that you did not mention, is that a lot of people may not be in a position to replace tires when they should come and they might be driving on worn out tires, which presents a safety hazard whether they're driving on high or low quality tires. there is a potentially a-safety aspect from this action. host: how do human-rights and free speech aissues play into the situation? guest: they have been an

important part of the relationship overall, but for the most part we have dealt with the human rights free- speech issues on a parallel track, not linking them closely to economic issues. that is particularly true since china came into the wto. one of the things that we had to give the chinese was permanent -- what is called most favored nation status, when we now call normal trade status. we used to review that on an annual basis, and some congressmen would vote against that because they did not like other things the chinese were doing -- how they operate in tibet or in minority areas, or human rights issues more generally. but that tool, if you will, that approach, does not apply any more because we have given china in normal trading status on a permanent basis. so congress does not get a chance to vote on this every year. host: terry is calling from

california on the democrats' line. caller: please do not cut me off. i just wanted to say that nafta has been very harmful to the united states. the american citizen, individual workers. i'd also want to say that the jobs, the trade deficit with china, even though we might be one of their larger importers or what have you, it does not touch the amount of the deficit that we have with them, so it is still unbalanced. i want to say that with all of our corporations going overseas, with the trade and nafta, they get paid to go overseas, to send the product back to us. it is a lose-lose situation, and our corporations from wall street to health care to the trades is making the united

states a third-class guest: again, yes, some jobs are going overseas, but our share of global manufacturing remains very high and one of the reasons is the high growth and productivity. we're doing very well in the high end of manufactured with highly skilled jobs. those of the jobs that will pay the high wages to support our standard of living. i do not think in the long term we will be protected by serving low-wage jobs that do not provide the standard of living at the u.s. level. we have to continue to move up the technology level so we can be at or near the top of the food chain and not protect low- wage, unskilled jobs. we should not really be striving to compete with china, which has a huge pool of unskilled workers

who work for much lower wages than we have. we have to compete at the high end of the market with more education. that is the way we maintain our standard of living. host: there is a list of items exported to china. at the top u.s. exports to china is electrical machinery at $11.4 million. machinery, miscellaneous grains, see, and fruit comes next. -- grains, seed and fruit comes next. a big difference there. guest: that reflects the fact that china has become the

assembler at the last stage of the production process. china, for example, today makes about 90% of all the world subnotebook computers -- of all notebook computers. those products are all being produced in china by taiwanese companies. we used to buy them from taiwan, now we are buying from china. this true for a very broad range of electronics, all the ipods and iphones and things like that, which are being made under contract in china. most of the high-value at a content originates in china, but it is taken from china and assembled into the final product that we buy in large quantities because of our in satiable are

seemingly insatiable demand for various kind of electronic toys. . caller: my basic problem with exporting to china is that machineries and computer and technology were they tend to take over their make it better and then sell it at a cheaper price. that is my first question. what do you think about that? my second question is, what do they tend to do as far as china keeping the yen so low, in which the whole thing about the global market?

the united states is sending money abroad. the monetary system is based on a closed system in which the money is recirculated. do you agree? there are a lot of gaps in the united states money going out to mexico and china. to me, that is devaluing the dollar at the united states. what are we going to do -- printing money does not solve the problem. if you are printing $10 million and leaving the country, you're knocking your head against the wall. million, you are knocking your head against the wall. guest: china has signed up for some provisions under international law. this has been a problem with us dealing with china and they have not lived at up to their commitments in the past the same is true for many emerging market economies.

they are either not willing or not able to fully enforce the provisions of the intellectual property that exist in the world trade system. however, their record is improving. some companies are having success in prosecuting cases where property is stolen. compensation is still too low, but we are moving in the right direction. the most important thing is that business people in china are building their own intellectual property and are serving as an indigenous source of demand for a credible enforcement of these types of laws. when you have a domestic demand for that sort of thing, it helps the situation move forward rapidly. on currency, you are right. they have been intervening in the market to appreciate their currency.

that is why they have built up over $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves. if they had not been intervening, their currency would have appreciated more, and it would have made their products more expensive abroad. i have written extensively about this in the last five years, criticizing the chinese for their currency and exchange rate policies. they have made some small reforms, but so far, they are inadequate, and their currency remained significantly undervalued. host: we have todaa twitter. guest: i do not think that is the constitutional requirement. i think it is required that you treat every country the same, so every country would have to bear the same tariff, no matter where

it came from, but the special provision under which china came into the wto, basically, allows us to discriminate against china. i think, that one level, they are right, but the administration is also right when they say what they did was fully consistent with trade laws, and china's commitment to the wto. it may be discriminatory the way that the chinese see it, but it is legal, given the commitment that they have made. host: next phone call. caller: i want to ask a guest a question. do you love america? are you patriotic? guest: yes, i think so.

caller: what are you telling all of these lies? you have taken so many jobs from this country in the manufacturing industry. it is said that people like you have a job. -- sad that people like you have a job. guest: this is a trend that has been clearly under way for five decades, and perhaps even longer, since the 1950's. we have been producing goods that are smaller and smaller, wages are going up, living standards are going up as a result, and that is a trend that benefit our country and the people that work in the manufacturing sector. host: chicago, illinois. on the independent line.

caller: i heard the other day on one of the major news stations that we pay 60 $500 million -- $65 million a day in interest, and i wonder what portion of that goes to china? guest: i do not recall exactly. remember, most government bonds are held by citizens. maybe you do not, but there could be some in your pension, ira, perhaps another investment account. but the share of our government debt shared by foreign-born is has been steadily growing, and i do not remember the exact amount, but it is something around 40%. china is the single-biggest holder of u.s. debt, but there are many investors that are also

holding at around the world. this would be a guess, but if you took the total amount of interest we are paying on our debt, which is significant and will be growing, it will, or a larger share of our government budget every year. certainly, the amount china is getting would be well under 10% of the total. host: we have a question on twitter. is that a possibility? guest: this is the unfinished civil morwar. china would like to reunite the island with the mainland.

so this is an issue that has been an outstanding for about six decades. people that follow this closely say that the situation has improved. a new government has been elected fairly recently. they are now having direct trade flows, direct shipping, direct aircraft movement, and so forth, so the tension has been reduced. the chinese, at the moment, seem prepared to wait. eventually, there will be reunification. the part in that supported independence for the island is now of of power, so i think the situation has stabilized with a bit. that does not mean that they will try to take back the island. host: phyllis from illinois.

caller: i could care less about the global economy. the american economy is where i want you to direct your thought. our country has gone to the bottom of the pit dealing with china, sending us poisonous goods, a poisonous foods, a 100- year lease from bill clinton, getting his daughters had to fund rich. our wealthy corporations are taking from the middle class, the american people. we do not need to be shipping anything in here except for maybe bananas, coffee beans, and oil. yes, they are manufacturing foreign cars here with all of the parts coming from overseas. you should be fired. guest: the option that you began to sketch out is certainly a

possibility. we could revert to self- sufficiency and not depend on any other imports. you did mention bananas and oil. if we did not, our living standard would shrink dramatically, gdp would shrink. we would be dramatically worse off if we did not have any significant foreign trade. host: robert in orlando. republican line. caller: when you talk about manufacturing between china and america, democrats always talk about the labor and republicans always talk about taxes. isn't the biggest factor in american manufacturing raw materials, environmental laws, and not being able to get raw materials here? our local newspaper has to get their resources from canada.

we are cutting down forests here but we have to import our paper. what will happen when cap and trade comes in? guest: raw materials are a factor, but perhaps not as much as you suggest. if we could sort pulp more cheaply in the u.s. demand in canada, i am sure that we would do that. i know there are required a bit of timber for pulp in the southern part of the united states. maybe they can buy it cheaper from a canadian source, but we are not dependent on them for newspapers. when cat and trade comes in, there will have to be some adjustments to the system so we do not have what we refer to as leakage. if we make it more expensive to produce goods that commit the greenhouse gases, production may simply go overseas unless we

have cooperation with other countries so that whenever regime is put in to limit greenhouse gas emissions is applied a relatively equally. if we do not have that, there will be a massive migration of industries and jobs, seeking out the least-regulated location. that would not serve any good purpose, we have to have scored nation and the nature at the regime's we have. certainly that is one of the things we're trying to accomplish in the negotiations at the end that the year in copenhagen. host: david isn't that rouge, louisiana, on the democrats' line. -- is in baton rouge,

louisiana, on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to talk about the motivation for this carrot at this time. what is exactly motivating the government to make this move at this time? is it the industry itself or is it a strategic move by the government, and why did they pick tigers and not something else? guest: the organization that pick tires was the steel workers. the industry oppose this case at first. they said if these tariffs were enacted it would be detrimental to the development of the tire industry in the united states. this was quickly brought by the labor union representing the workers. the government had to respond and look at the merits of the case. as i mentioned, the independent

body did recommend the terrace be put in place. -- did it recommend the tarrifs be put in place. as i indicated, i think the strategy will be to try to bring similar cases covering other products and hope to get a comparable kind of result. why did president obama go along with the itc recommendation, at least most of it? you certainly can read what he said. he believes it will build support. we have to enforce our trade laws if we are going to we live in a globalized world, and he is right, that you would be naive if you did not realize that this was a political payback for the union that supported him in the

campaign. host: >> the u.s. house back in just under 15 minutes to begin legislative work on the agenda today on several bills including how hard it is affecting small businesses. -- how tarp is affecting small businesses. also, this week legislation that authorizes $3 billion establishing an energy department research program on new vehicle technology and a measure that overhauls federal the subsidized student loans. the house gaveling in at noon. it will be live on c-span. in the meantime, we will watch "washington journal." segment this morning is, how should wall street

deregulated? we have this story in "the washington post" today. that is are asked iranian excesses', support new rules. -- bankers are asked to rein in the excess is, support new rules. the democrats' line is 202-737- 0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. and independents, 202-628-0205. our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org, and we are on twitter,twitter.com/cspanwj. "obama offered a reminder that financial firms survive the meltdown because of expenses efforts by the government, which can potentially huge cost to taxpayers. among the dramatic actions were bailing out an american in a

national group, federal the pungent -- federal deposit insurance gcorp., and creating a $700 billion financial rescue fund." what do you think should be done right now as far as regulation on wall street? do you think the president made the case yesterday for the effectiveness of what has happened so far? do you also take that as a sign that more should be done? looking at "the washington times" in a piece from today, we will have that for you in a moment. the president again looking at his speech. it says "mr. obama is proposing a range of regulatory measures, including greater authority to the federal reserve, to police investment firms, a new oversight board to monitor the largest finance companies and the creation of the consumer financial protection agency to crack down on abuses by credit card and mortgage lenders.

with health-care reform already overloaded legislative se circuits, republicans are in no hurry to advance the white house plans for wall street. let's go to our first caller. paul is on the democrats' line from oklahoma. caller: we do need regulation up there. if we do not, it will be just like any other business up there. if you do not regulate them, they are going to continue to do the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place. the republicans are not in no hurry. all the cronies that bush build out \ t out -- one of these dayr whole financial system is going to crush. we have to regulate these people and make sure that what they do, they are not taking risks with the public's money. anybody that is against

regulation is against our government. that is about all i have to say. host: let's go to jeff on the republicans line, calling from greensboro, north carolina. what is your comment? caller: we are at the point now where we nationalize the health- care industry, we are going to nationalize 50% of private industry, and we see how that is run. we saw steve king last night on running the insurance industry, so we are on the road to nationalizing everything when it comes to industry. host: does that mean you do not think wall street should be regulated at an increased watchdog status? caller: well, look at what happened with the bernie madoff thing. the sec was given plenty of heads up about that, but we still had that. i think unfortunately your

previous caller was correct. we are headed for a financial bridge wall, regardless of -- a financial brick wall. you cannot have bankruptcy and then say, wow, that last credit- card i did not cut up, i'm just going to spend myself back into fiscal prosperity. host: this is what the president's proposals are for the regulation of wall street. of " barney frank has vowed to move mr. obama's regulatory agenda through the house but not without changes. mr. frank was with mr. obama for monday's wall street speech and said in an interview that he does not back the proposal by mr. obama to give the federal reserve sweeping oversight of the nation's largest financial firms. mr. frank says congress will authorize a council of regulators to monitor players considered too big to fail."

are those words that ring true for you? let's go to lawrence on the independent line right here in washington, d.c. caller: it is a tragedy these days to be an american. the federal government was also complicit in the financial crisis that this nation is facing. it was not just wall street. we see the revolving door cycle of wall street boys and girls going to the federal government , and the federal government going to wall street. the government is not only complicit, but their hypocrisy to do this when they are trillions of dollars in debt? thank you. host: let's go to alexandria, virginia, robert, on the democrats' line. caller: can you hear me ok? host: loud and clear. go ahead. caller: let the republicans go

back to deal with what banks use to do. then they can be regulated more easily than they are right now. there is so many derivatives and foolishness that it is hard to keep up with. putting extra fees on their credit cards and on their -- if they'd bounce a check or something, they want to charge them three times with the check was for and all that kind of foolishness. led the banks go back to doing what they used to do. thank you. host: it is interesting to read how people on wall street reacted to the president's remarks yesterday "the washington times" reports that behind the scenes in number of financial industry groups are lobbying against the president house reforms. the u.s. chamber of commerce also launched a multimillion- dollar advertising campaign against the consumer financial

petition agency -- protection agency, calling it a massive new bureaucracy with sweeping powers that will deprive consumers of affordability and choice. but how are consumers, customers, and americans viewing the financial situation now? a newly released associated press poll found that seven out of 10 americans think the federal government has not instituted safeguards needed to prevent another financial meltdown. 80% rate the condition of the economy as poor. financial institutions bore the brunt of the criticism in the poll, with 79% of those surveyed saying banks and lenders that made risky loans deserve much of the blame. let's go to debbie on the republicans line, calling from california. caller: hi. host: hi, debbie, go right ahead. caller: i have been doing accounting for 39 years, and i

think there are way too many restrictive laws and patch worked laws. i think the laws should be more general guidelines. i think the government has got way too much reach into too much business. businesses with a general restrictions will survive if they do the right thing and they will fall if they do not do the right thing. i think the government is way too into our stuff. in the health-care industry, there it was a response that was an exemption in the health-care industry back in the 1940's. it allowed bluecross to give all of its insurance to employers, but once we were 70% injured, it opened up the market and i think -- once we were 770% insured, it

opened up the market. we should get outside of our -- we should get our insurance outside our employers. hmo's were popular and they got popular in the 1980's, but it gave us this mentality of insuring for the small stuff, and that is not what insurance is all about. host: that could compete on the independent line, -- let's go to pete on the independent line, from florida. caller: no matter what regulation scheme has been devised and developed, the brokers, the wall street has always found a way to work around it. i would suggest that possibly by repealing the restrictive gun laws, it might give some incentive to the brokers to self-regulate when they have to

deal with messing up with their customers. thank you. host: let's get to some of the other financial news from the papers today. this from "the new york times" business section. "stock markets be entered on monday afternoon and the security and public company mr. obama's visit to lower manhattan were dismantled. stocks were slightly higher after mr. obama urged bank executives to accept regulations and change the way they do business." also taking a look at how americans are feeling the economy, issues like job loss from "the washington post" today. "lots of fear remains over the economy, job losses." "despite fresh signs that the worst may be over, there has been no let up in public fears about possible financial hardship and there is broad concern that not enough is being done to prevent another meltdown. according to a washington post-

abc news poll." let's go to decatur, where jenny is on the democrats like. caller: hi. my comment is, apparently we do need regulation. of course, what we actually need is honest people. but the last eight years, based on that to all of these banks, ceo's, corporations, mortgage companies, all of that, if they had gone back to these big corporations who had been giving out all of these big payouts and bonuses, why didn't they collect the money back from the people who seemingly owned the business anyway, with host: the skirt to ralph on the republican line. -- let's go to ralph on the

republican line. caller: i trade for a living. i can tell you that the level of corruption is stunning. there is something with a fake shares and dump them into the market. there is an estimate that half of the shares in the market are fraudulent. if you go in your portfolio and look at it, half of what you have in your portfolio is fake. there is a web site and you might want to go there and do some reading. . . nvolved. the securities and exchange commission is a lack dog for hedge funds, they go out, rape, bern, and pillage. they collect dividends, will be the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin.

chaplain coughlin: lord god, may this fall session of the 111th congress be shaped in timely fashion by divine providence. so that you are glorified in your creatures. make the members of the house of representatives ready to receive your holy inspiration and open to colleagues who have a mutual and accountable vision for this country. this is the season for the seeding of a strong annual growth not to be seen until the cloak of winter is lifted. the bright colors of this fermentation will soon splash against the mountains and touch our outsides with the natural semblance of dying.

yet, lord, we pray that autumn's full splendor may so captivate national attention that daily photos of what is happening will trace only your steady cycle at work and be hardly noticed, personal gain, or partisan advantage fall to the ground like falling leaves. replace all our trust in you, lord of the harvest, and the ages, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, one of the greatest threats to our national security is the vulnerability of our nation's technology infrastructure. in this age where everything is becoming wired, computers oversee our bank accounts, military system, electric grid, communication systems, dams, and power plants, air traffic control systems, and countless other vital parts of our society. these systems are attacked every single day. the fact is one of these

systems is likely being attacked right now. the president has said that securing our nation's networks is a priority for his administration. however, i am concerned that while congress was away in august, two of our government's top cybersecurity officials resigned and we still have no cybersecurity coordinator within the white house. we must regain focus, fill these vacant high level positions, and implement a plan to secure our networks before an attack does irreparable harm to our nation. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, during the august recess i held four of the largest town halls in the history of south carolina. 1700 in columbia, 1500 in lexington, 1500 in buford, 1200

at hilton head. these were passionate events full of honest patriots and nearly 95% want us to work together for health insurance reform but not a government takeover. during these events i explained two health care bill amendments which were adopted. the first was to exempt and protect try care -- tricare from the proposed mandates in the bill. tricare serves 9.4 million active duty members, national guard and reserve members, veterans, their families and survivors. the second amendment urges members of congress to vote in favor of a government-run option to enroll in the program themselves. if it's good enough for the american people, it's good enough for congress. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, on september 3 the vietnamese police arrested blogger wyn noch quinn. this arrest followed an earlier arrest of two other vietnamese bloggers. fortunately quinn was released on sunday. however there was one continue for her release and that was she had to stop blogging. in order to be release interested jail, she had to give up her freedom of expression. and i believe this is unawful -- unlawful and absolutely unacceptable. the vietnamese government continues to deny their people's fundamental rights. this must be stopped. vietnamese citizens must have a right to advocate their views whether on the internet or public protest. for that reason i have interviewsed house resolution 672, calling on the government of the socialist republic of vietnam to release these imprisoned bloggers and to

respect internet freedom. and i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor house resolution 672. thank you, i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, in gaza and the west bank the u.n. relief works agency operates hundreds of schools, many of them controlled by hamas-approved teacher unions. when the u.n. considered adding the holocaust to the history curriculum, hamas wrote a vicious letter denying the events and refusing to let their children hear about one of the most well documented horrific events of the 20th century. sadly, in typical fashion u.n. officials have backed off their plans. effectively creding controlling to -- ceding control to hamas. how can there be peace in the middle east when the party that controls the strip steadfastly denies events with facts. the u.n. does little to combat this disinformation and hate

speech. it is far past time for the u.n. to take a stand against the hatred of hamas extremists by ensuring that history is no longer distorted. and peace will only come when the children of gaza are no longer taught that israel has no right to exist. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. kagen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kagen: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out in favor of my constituents. like jim from green bay who says that every citizen should have health care. quote, i have no insurance, i'm 60 years old, closed quotes. it's time to fix that be problem in a bipartisan way. i'm speaking out today for sally who says, quote, our prescriptions cost $1,000 a month. this is a very big issue for our family, close quotes. sally, hope is on the way. we have to pass legislation that allows the people to

negotiate for lower prescription drug costs, to guarantee that if you are a citizen you should be able in the -- should be be in the risk pool. the insurance companies ought to process paper not practicing medicine. it's time to change our health care system and move towards a market-based system that works for everybody and guarantee for every citizen if they have an opportunity, they should have it at the lowest price. every business entity should show us their price and then accept as payment in full the lowest price accepted from anybody else. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you. i rise today to honor the tremendous achievements of 17-year-old american tennis player, melanie oudin. she was born on september 23, 1991 in marietta, georgia, where i reside and she has captured the heart of america with her inspiring performance at the 2009 united states open.

melanie entered the united states open as the youngest player in the top 100, numbered 67. the number three american behind serena and venus williams. this was melanie's second u.s. open and she played incredibly well. melanie ousted the number four seed, 13 seed, 29 seed before losing in the quarterfinals to the number nine player. this series of wins comes on the back ever her performance at wimbledon this summer where she made the fourth round. melanie's sneakers, pink and yellow, with the word believe stamped on the heel, sum up her attitude about life and sports. and she's shown all of us what can be achieved if you only work hard enough. i know that i and the other residents of the marietta, georgia, are proud to call her one of our own and we look forward to watching her continued rise in sports of tennis and her life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. markey: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to applaud the critical actions taken by this congress to create jobs, cut taxes, and invest in america's long-term economic growth by passing the american recovery and reinvestment act. with the goal of creating and saving jobs, rushing relief to america's business and families, and pulling our country back from the brink of catastrophe, the recovery act was signed into law by president obama in my home state of colorado. as a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, i was especially pleased to see that the colorado department of transportation was prepared with shovel ready projects that would have an immediate positive impact on the lives of colorado's business and families. since the passage of the recovery act, 576 jobs have been created or sustained through transportation projects alone in colorado. these jobs have created a

payroll of over $700,000. not only have these projects helped reduce unemployment, but they are improving the safety and efficiency of colorado's highways. with interchange improvements, the addition of shoulder and bike lanes, the recovery act is making colorado a more multimodal and sustainable place to live. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to pay tribute to marine begunnery sergeant aaron who made the ultimate sacrifice earlier this month in afghanistan. sergeant kinefik followed had his grandfather's footsteps. he was twice named marine of the year, distinguished honor graduate at fort benning, assigned to central command. and just two days before he lost his life, sergeant earned a purple heart after being hit

by shrapnel in a rocket attack. i want to recognize the courage of the sergeant's family, his father, his mother, and his sisters whom he was extremely close. they will surely fill the coming days with stories about aaron including the thanksgiving a few years ago when he was pushing to have dinner as quickly as possible because he wanted to get to the v.a. hospital. he said, and i quote, that's where the true heroes are. now aaron stands firmly among our nation's truest heroes and the example he has set, the sacrifices he has made will always be with us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. mr. yarmuth: across the country tens of thousands of passionate boisterous americans have come to town hall meetings to make their voices heard to members of congress. i welcome that expression of concern. those concerns have touched a wide range of issues. but there is a common theme

running through all of them and that is people feel that they are not being listened to. and while i understand the frustration, i think maybe the source of their frustration is not understood. it is that no matter how loud we scream, there is still a torrent of money that is pouring into the political system on the other side that drowns out those voices. so as we debate health care and energy and reform of our financial system, i hope those same passionate americans will talk to congress about the need to reform our campaign finance system, about the need to create public financing so that their voices as passionate and as intelligent as they may be are not drowned out by the huge amounts of money that we now see in the political system. i think this is the cause for the future as the supreme court debates a decision which could make this even more compelling need. we need to deal with this topic. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, an american resistance movement has begun. it was seen in d.c. this weekend when over a million people came to show their displeasure with government. their grievances, too much government spending, borrowing, and taxing, too much bloated government, too much waste and irresponsibility in government. this is not the 1960 's violent anti-war protests led by radical draft dodging college elites. these are families, working people, business owners e. veterans, seniors, and the backbone of the american spirit. these people have a stake in america and concern about the future of a nation they treasure and love. government beware, these people have engaged in a political fight and are not about to give their country away to those who want to run roughshod over their lives and force more government intrusion upon them. these people don't like the atmosphere that disagreement with government is frowned upon. this american resistance is not going away. people will not be dismissed

and intimidated by those who only answer their valid concerns is to say they are un-american. these americans want government to listen and we ignore them as our own peril. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. brterfield -- mr. butterfield: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. butterfield: the vast majority of american workers have private health insurance, if you are among those with health insurance, do you really know what you have or what you will have in five years? unfortunately, many people do not understand the limits of their insurance until they get sick. . insurance companies will continue to deny coverage or increase rates because of pre-existing conditions. they will continue to drop people when they get sick or water down coverage when it's needed the most, and they will continue to set caps on the coverage on a given year or over a lifetime. if you watch your current

policy very closely, read the fine print. the american people will see they are paying more and more for less and less. for americans with health insurance, these reforms provide stability, affordability, security and peace of mind. americans should not have to wait for reform. congress must get it done this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rehberg: mr. speaker, after 16 listening sessions over august, i heard from thousands of montanans about health care reform. today, i'm here to report that away from the influence of powerful special interests and the spin of political operatives, this debate is very different. that's why it's so important to get out of washington in order to hear americans, our bosses, what they think. we haven't yet seen a final bill in either the house or the senate. once we get a final bill, but before we vote on it, congress

should adjourn this body for 30 days, not for more vacation. far from it. we need those days to return home to listen to what real americans have to say about the new bill. then, we can vote. our children and grandchildren won't remember how fast we rmpled health care. they will -- reformed health care. they will remember how well we fixed it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: health insurance is not something we can take for granted. every day, 14,000 americans lose their coverage. a recent treasury department report noted that approximately half of all americans under the age of 65 will lose their coverage at some point in the next 10 years. thousands are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, like asthma, pregnancy, arthritis or diabetes. millions more have no health insurance at all. in hawaii, public and private insurance covers an estimated

92% of our population. that means that most of us have health insurance, and because of our prepaid health care act, our coverage is among the best in the country. at the same time, hawaii's economy has been hard hit, and our unemployment reached a 31-year high this past may, nearly doubling just what it was last year. other states are similarly situated. h.r. 3200 will provide health care coverage for those who lose it or never had it. i ask my colleagues to support health care reform now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as we debate the issue of health care, the administration late last friday night did something that was 180 degrees from what was promised in last year's

campaign. i'm referring to a tax increase on middle-income working americans. yes, last friday night the administration announced that will will be a 35% tar i have on inexpensive tires coming from china. the interesting -- tariff on inexpensive tires coming from china. the interesting thing is that there was not a single u.s. tire manufacture signing on in support of this -- manufacturer signing on in support of this. they said if this 35% tax is imposed, they will not go into the business of manufacturing inexpensive tires. what does that mean, mr. speaker? it will see we will not only see a 35% tax increase on working americans, but we will not see a single job created here in the united states of america. we need to realize we also create the potential for great retaliation and a wide range of other areas. this decision is bad for the american worker and bad for the u.s. economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise?

mr. hall: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hall: thank you, mr. speaker. over the last few weeks, i've heard stories from businesses, nonprofits, individuals and even health care providers in my district who have received health care premium increases up to 39%. these increases are unfair, unsustainable and crippling our economy. these drastic increases are likely to continue as long as private insurers are allowed to regulate themselves. that's why we must vote soon on a comprehensive plan to improve health care. a plan that will reduce costs for the middle class, end insurance company abuses and increase stable quality care and access for all americans. we need to get reform done but get it right. we must keep listening and engaging with our constituents to ensure that reform will benefit all americans. both health care premiums growing three times faster than wages we cannot aford to wait. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. the american health care system is in need of reform. but the current proposals are not the solution the american public is looking for. the house health care plan will create a surtax on small business. the lifeblood of our economy. to help pay for the $1.5 trillion reform. my constituent, donald dickey, is a small business owner and is already being forced to cut his work force by more than 70% because of the current economy. under the proposed health care reform bill, donald says he will be forced to close his business because of the combination of the new surtax and requirements for employers to provide health coverage for all workers. we need to work on a commonsense solution that encourages job growth, expands access to affordable health care and gives americans the ability to choose a plan that fits their needs.

i'm willing to work with my colleagues to achieve those goals in a final bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: to request permission to drouse -- address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, on a day after the president addressed this country on a need for regulatory reform in the financial sector, i stand before you to discuss the state of the economy. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle failed to comprehend the inextricable connection between the economy and the need of comprehensive health care reform. we must remember that the extraordinary rise in health care costs and insurance premiums has affected several segments of our economy. surging health care costs slow the rate of job growth by making it more expensive for companies to add new workers. as health care costs rise, corporate operating margins are cut which reduces the capacity of firms to grow by investing

in research, plant and equipment. furthermore, high and escalating out-of-pocket costs are forcing families to delay mortgage payments on their homes. since enactment of the recovery and reinvestment act we have prevented delay layoffs of tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, and our public servants and we have put people to work renovating schools and hospitals without one vote from the other side. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, last week president obama called for the administration to establish demonstration projects to measure the effectiveness of tort reform. but we don't need to demonstrate the tort reform works. we've already proved that in states where it has been enacted. in my home state of texas, for

example, health care premiums fell by 30%. that means texans pay less to have better health care and more options. according to a study by the harvard school of public health, 40% of medical malpractice suits filed in the u.s. are without merit. 40%. a department of health and human services study found that unlimited excessive damages add $70 million to $126 billion annually to health care costs. these costs are then passed along to the patient in the price of health care. tort reform will reduce health care costs by tens of billions of dollars. we don't need to test tort -- we don't need to test tort reform. we need to enact it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, my town hall meetings, i was

amazed at how much consensus there was about health care reform. people liked health care rsm. what they didn't like were things that are not actually in the bill. because of the massive disinformation campaign on this bill, people didn't like things that weren't there. there are more hallucinations about this from opponents of this bill than there was when timothy leery was doing business in the late 1960's. take this hallucination that this bill's going to ensure -- insure illegal immigrants. you look at page 132, it says for purpose of this division, the term affordable credit individual means an individual who is lawfully present in the state -- in the state of the united states. look at page 143. nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united states. now, the president was challenged during his joint address to the u.s. congress. i tell you what, if there was a deception, it wasn't by the president of the united states. and it is time for us to call out those people who spread

hallucinations, phantoms, boogiemen. people want health care and this reform and we are going to pass it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. fleming: i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. the president has claimed that his policies are going to reduce the skyrocketing national deficit, but i'd like to spend just a moment to debunk this myth. rather than reducing the deficit, the president's budget calls for a $9 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. $6 trillion higher than the c.b.o. predicted just in january when he took office. even according to the white house, the national debt will more than double in 10 years. the president's own numbers show that the national debt will be $1 -- 107% of g.d.p. by 2019. in the month of august, there were 14.92 million unemployed individuals looking for work, the highest number in history.

since february when the democrats passed their stimulus, 2.46 million people have lost their jobs. and while the president promised that billions of dollars would go into shovel-red construction projects that would help rebuild infrastructure and employ hundreds of thousands transportation spending from the stimulus is only trickled at a snail's pace. given this administration's track record, why would the american people be skeptical about $106 trillion for health care reform? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. johnson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. reforming health insurance must be our focus for now. the vast majority of americans already have health insurance. the question is, what does our health insurance reform bill mean to them? just three things. it means an insurance company can no longer decide to deny any coverage or jack up your

rates because of pre-existing conditions. it means it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick, water it down when you need it the most. it also means insurance companies will no longer be able to play some ash -- place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage that you receive each year. now, mr. speaker, it is time for the insurance companies to come to the table, spend the millions that they are spending passing out these mistruths and falsehoods and try to work this problem out. the american people deserve everyone working together to get a decent health care reform for the people of this nation, and they don't deserve all the misinformation that's going around now. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of jerry allen jones, a police officer in my hometown of charleston, west virginia, who died tragically in the line of duty while tracing a suspect early sunday morning. at just 27, patrolman jones truly exemplified what it meant to serve both his local community and as a citizen of our nation. before becoming a patrolman with the charleston police department, he was a sergeant with the united states marine corps and helped secure the kandahar airport when the u.s. military first went to afghanistan after september 11. back at home he was active in his local church where he met his wife samantha. the couple recently celebrated their first anniversary together. charleston mourns the life of one of their finest. we mourn with his wife, samantha, with his family and we offer our prayers of comfort and remembrance. i urge my colleagues to join me today to recognize jerry allen jones, our friend, protector and hero for his fearless courage, serving the citizens of charleston and the entire state of west virginia.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> on september 1 we lost an artist who helped shape a generation of music in this country. for more than 40 years eric consul shared his remarkable talent and passion with music lovers across cincinnati and around the world. his enthusiasm helped build the cincinnati pops into a musical organization without peer. there are many recordings over the years brought classical and contemporary masterpieces into the homes of countless americans. whether directing from his podium or leading the national symphony orchestra as he did here in washington every year on memorial day and the fourth of july, maestro consequencele was -- consul was a source of pride for our community. he will be dearly missed by all

of us whose lives were enriched by his creativity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. all of us had the opportunity to spend five weeks at home listening to our constituents. in vermont when i arrived home, much as many of you, people were very fearful about a health care bill. a health care bill that was going to establish death panels. a health care bill where the government was going to select your doctor. a health care bill that would have as its primary beneficiaries illegal immigrants. of course that is not a health care bill that anyone in this body is considering. but as we proceeded and pushed back on the misinformation, it became increasingly clear that the health care bill president obama has outlined and has been passed by three committees in this house to regulate insurance companies so they offer real insurance, to extend coverage to 37 million americans, something good for them but also for those of us with insurance to reduce our

cost premium of $1,100, and a public option to provide competition in choice. that is a health care bill that americans support and we must pass. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to continue to remind my colleagues about the energy crisis we are experiencing in our country. while oil is currently trading at some $69.21 per barrel today, it was at $147 in july of 2008 when we all remember gas prices at over $4 a gallon. we must address our energy problems as we continue to address our economic problems. by doing so, we can ensure that while our economy recovers, we

will be competitive and secure in the energy sector as well. as such i was pleased that my bill, h.r. 3165, the wind research and development act of 2009, passed this body last week. i would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for the support on my first piece of legislation that passed this full body. we must continue to promote energy efficiency, to drill and mine efficiency as we previously drilled for oil and mined coal. we must also enact policies that promote clean energy jobs and deployment of renewables. finally as my bill did last week, we must continue to invest in research and development to ensure that the united states is at the forefront of the energy revolution. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it is so good to be back on the house floor doing the people's work. but once again i hear the word crisis used constantly.

energy is a crisis, the health care crisis. when will this body deal with the problems in many cases created by government in a way that the american people can have the confidence that in fact we view problems as something we gets solved and it gets solved by having the private sector able to do what it does best and the public sector doing only the minimum necessary. when i hear my colleagues talk about how we have to make insurance companies do this or that, i recognize that we still don't get it. the crisis is here in washington. the crisis are are created in washington and we must change to helping solve problems with the american people and not making everything a crisis to justify our pet projects. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, i

spent the month of august in the first part of september traveling across my district in upstate new york listening to my constituents in town hall meetings, teletown halls, and one-on-one discussions in my office. i have listened to doctors, nurses, hospital administrators in order to build consensus on what my constituents want to see as part of a health bill -- health care reform bill. i learned a lot during that time and i heard stories that would make hearts break regarding denied coverage or loss of coverage because of pre-existing conditions and catastrophic illness. and i have promised my constituents that i will keep listening until we have to go to vote on this bill. however, it is crucial to america's financial health that we pass compreff health care reform to rid the current system of rampant waste, fraud, and abuse like the inflated costs of prescription drugs. our economy cannot sustain the high cost of our current system and it is clear to me that the health care reform in this country is not just a moral imperative for those who don't have health care insurance, but

it's also an economic imperative for those that do have health care insurance to ensure those individuals can continue the coverage they have. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. miss mccarthy: mr. speaker -- ms. mccarty: -- ms. mccarthy: the number of americans between the ages of 18 and 64 who are without health insurance increase significantly last year to over 20%. more than one of every five nonelderly adults lack health insurance in 2008. those millions are one accident, one major illness away from financial ruin. the majority of those uninsured adults without health coverage

worked full-time or part-time. at the same time, they share with employment-based health insurance declined significantly to 58%. the current expensive, inefficient, and indifferent system is failing us. americans deserve better and we deserve it now. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise? >> to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of the 15th anniversary of the violence against women act. i am so proud of the light that congress has shined on domestic violence 15 years ago this week, of the work that the dedicated staff and advocates have done for the past decade

and a half and the brivery shown by victims and their families. for 15 years now the office for violence against women has served as a safe haven for families everywhere. through it we are providing services and counseling during victims' darkest hour, emergency and transitional shelter in times of need, and legal assistance to help prosecute perpetrators. domestic violence is a scourge in this country. one that recognizes no income brackets, no race, no age. earlier this week, i joined my constituents in wisconsin for the fourth annual brides walk. we donned wedding dresses and marched through the streets of milwaukee calling attention to the violent murder of glad dis. -- gladis. she was in the process of handing her bouquet to her made of honor eight years ago in new york when a former lover burst into the church and killed her in her wedding dress. domestic violence is not a private matter. domestic violence against a partner or child whether physical or mental is not ok.

on this anniversary i urge my colleagues to recommit themselves once again to ending this injustice in our country. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. like i have heard from many of my colleagues this afternoon, i also have been listening to constituents in my district throughout the recess and this past weekend about the issue of health care. and after church services last sunday, this is what i heard from one woman who worked for general motors for 26 years, taking an early retirement a few years ago, thinking she was secure in her retirement. but now she has found she has lost her investments in her 401-k because of g.m. bankruptcy, also lost her health care. and she's a breast cancer survivor. now she has neither the means to buy insurance nor an

insurance company who will insure her because of this pre-existing condition. mr. speaker, there are too many people in my district and across the country who cannot buy insurance because they are barred because of pre-existing condition. this is one of the many reasons why we need to take action on real comprehensive health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection. mr. holt: mr. speaker, the urgency of health care reform comes from the fact that overall americans are living sicker, dying younger, and paying more. not just the poor, not just those without insurance, not just the unemployed. overall americans are living sicker, dying younger, and paying more than they should or more than residents of other countries do. just minutes ago i came from a meeting with the heads of the american medical association, the american nursing association, the american hospital association.

doctors, hospital administrators, nurses not politicians. the clear consensus is that the health care legislation as it is taking shape here in congress can be expected to result in better patient care while holding costs in check. let me repeat, the legislation as it is taking shape in congress can result in better care at no more cost for all americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote occurs -- incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 22, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 22, a bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5 united states code to allow the united states postal service to pay its share of contributions for annuitants' health benefits out of the postal service retiree health benefits fund. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. towns, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. towns: mr. speaker, h.r. 22, the united states postal service financial relief act of

2009, as amended would permit the united states postal service to lower its 2009 payment into the retirement health benefit fund, $5.4 billion, reduce it to $1.4 billion. this bill does not provide any taxpayer funds to the postal service. the service of course in essence h.r. 22 is intended to provide the postal service with some relief from its current financial crisis by lowering the amount of its 2009 payment due. the measure has been properly vetted and amended by the house oversight committee. in line with calls for a more physical responsible government, the bill as amended does not score, the bill enjoys the support of 339 members of the house from both parties. i would like to thank

representative mchugh of new york and davis of illinois for introducing this bill and for their hard work and pasheence in navigate -- patience in navigating the bill through the house. further i would like to thank the house democratic leadership and the budget committee for working with us to help advance the bill to the floor. . i'd also like to thank chairman lynch of massachusetts with his leadership on the subcommittee and for being a tireless advocate for the postal service and all of its employees. unfortunately, chairman lynch could not be with us today. without objection, i'd like to enter into the record a statement on his behalf. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. towns: additionally, i'd like to thank the gentleman from california and congressman issa, you know, for his support and strong work on this bill.

also, congressman chaffetz for his work as well. i'd like to recognize them because this is truly a bipartisan support for this important legislation which i think is so important. the united states postal service is regularly acknowledged to be among the most trusted of the federal agencies. in part, due to the positive relationship that it -- that has approximately 625,000 employees. the postal service is often the only federal presence in many of the urban and rural areas throughout the united states. and is often the face of the federal government. yet, despite the best efforts of its employees, the postal service faces financial challenge unlike any many times. mail volumes have declined at a

record pace, falling by seven billion pieces during the third quarter of fiscal year 2009. and 14.3 compared to the same period last year. in fact, volumes continue to fall for all types of mail, first class, standard, periodical and also packaged services. the postal service ended the third quarter ending in june, 2009, with a loss of $2.4 billion. its year to date necessary loss in the third quarter $4.7 billion. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: to be recognized to speak on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. issa: mr. speaker, the introduction of this bill on january 6, the first legislative day, was appropriate. this is a problem for an organization, the united states post office, which is in fact 15 times larger than general motors. the united states post office is not only a constitutional obligation but in fact an organization which has existed for the service of the united states of america since our founding. but since the 1970's, the united states post office has had a problem. the problem is our own success. alternative deficiency have -- invoices, payments and certainly many other, emails. the united states post office is also suffering from a recession that we all are suffering under. therefore, the committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to recognize that we must reform

the post office, again, having just passed the postal accountability and enhancement act in just 2006. we are faced with another crisis. but rather than having that crisis lead to haphazard reductions, the chairman and i have worked together with members on both sides of the aisle, as the chairman said, 339 co-sponsors, to create a soft landing for the post office. it will not be that soft, mr. speaker. it will in fact require that they accelerate the reduction in their force. it will require that they look at all costs and service. it will require without a doubt the closing of post offices around our nation. mr. speaker, as you know, these are difficult decisions. they're both financial and they're political. they impact the communities who have so long allowed people to go to their current post office to maintain a postal main box, to do other serves. these services will be away in

the future. so for that reason, although i would have preferred a major reform, i would have preferred we do some of these hard steps, i'm supporting an alternate course, one in which we use these last two weeks and only these last two weeks of the fiscal year to move this bill with a cost, as the chairman said, of zero because there's so little time left in the year. however, we are committed on this side of the aisle, and i know the chairman shares this, to work with the postal service to find ways to reduce their cost, their overhead and many of the legacy items that today make it difficult. mr. speaker, i want to repeat something that the chairman said because it's north worthy for my -- noteworthy for my conservative friends. the post office's money that we are talking about today is the money they have put aside. this is the only agency that works in this way. so although this could have scored it does not score, and

although people will often say that we're being fiscal conservatives if we vote against this, the truth is the postal service operates within its own funds. the funds that will be used in h.r. 22 are their funds. ultimately, the american people will look to the post office to make the corrections. this committee on a bipartisan basis will oversee the post office, see that they come in line for the future so they continue to operate on their own revenue and not on any revenue provided by congress. so, mr. speaker, i hope my friends are listening. i hope this will go far behind the 339 co-sponsors, and i hope that everyone on both sides of the aisle will put down their mark today to make sure that we commit ourselves to working with the post office to do the necessary reforms so we will not be back here again in the same way next year. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york.

mr. towns: mr. speaker, i would like to first recognize the gentleman from missouri for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to also thank the chairman and the ranking member as well as the house leadership for shepherding this bill to the floor. this substitute amendment, h.r.22 -- h.r. 22 is sorely needed to relieve the u.s. postal service of an oversized payment of $5.4 billion to a retiree health benefits fund. the postal service will under this legislation will pay $1.4 billion. the postal service is suffering . the same effects of this recession as the rest of the nation. without legislative relief, the mostal service will default on

$5.4 -- the postal service will default on $5.4 billion due on september 30. this bill is not a bailout as no taxpayer funds will be provided to the postal service. the postal accountability and enhancement act required the postal service to prefund the cost of health care benefits for future retirees. and no other government agency or private company is required to prefund retiree benefits on such an aggressive or ambitious schedule. the postal service operates on revenues from sales of its products and services. the postal service has already embarked on a cost-cutting estimated to be $6 billion in fiscal year 2009. by cutting workhours, freezing hiring and closing

administrative offices. the postal service has paid $10 billion into the trust fund over the past two years. although it's suffered combined losses of $7.9 billion during that two-year period. this bill is in line with the actions of many large businesses including their competitors which have temporarily reduced or suspended payments for retiree benefits or pensions during the recession. again, thank you for yielding, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, a member of the committee, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. chaffetz: thank you. i want to thank chairman towns and ranking member issa for the bipartisan support and effort to move this bill forward. it's an important piece of legislation. h.r. 22 is needed to avoid a taxpayer-funded bailout to the united states postal service. the united states postal service is the only federal enter into prefund its pension and retiree health -- required to prefund its pension and retiree health plans. they have paid for retiree health benefits as opposed to using this year's operating revenues. while the united states postal service needs to continue to reduce costs, one of the impressive things that has happened is that they have reduced their work force by 22% since 1999. a 22% reduction in the work force since 1999 compared to a 13% increase in the federal work force in other parts of the government. the main driver of the united states postal service debt has been the 2006 postal accountability and enhancement act's requirement to prefund

80% of its future retiree health benefit costs, a 75-year liability in just 10 years. no other business or government entity in the united states does that. had it not been for this prefunding, the united states postal service would actually have shown a profit. and that's why i think you see broad bipartisan support with 339 co-sponsor on this bill in support of h.r. 22. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this so that we can avoid a taxpayer bailout that would be needed. and finally, let me just mention, the good men and women who work so hard, so diligently, that cares so much, my hats off to them and the good work they do for this country and the united states postal service. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: i'd like to recognize -- i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from washington, d.c., ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from district of columbia is recognized for

three minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. with great thanks to our chairman and our ranking member who work so well together on this, on this essential bill. mr. speaker, we sure rescue a lot of private sector agencies. a whole slew of them. but here comes the postal service. not asking for a bailout. understand that we don't even subsidize the postal service even though they are the only federal agency mentioned in the constitution. so it's a federal agency we must have, mandated in the constitution. yet, alone among government agencies, if you want to consider an agency that funds itself out of its own revenue, a government agency, just because it's in the constitution, alone they are required to prefund their health benefits. not us, mind you.

no federal agency's got to do that. and how do they prefund? from postal funds. i don't think you need to read the papers every day to know what's happened to postal funds. these folks have had to put up $10 billion in prefunding in the past couple of years out of postal funds. yet, this is a failing business. it's not a failing business because of their policies or their practices. they've been overtaken by the fact -- they've been overtaken by emails. they're not like wall street which went into a deliberate mode of greed. they -- i don't care what kind of genius you are. you are going to have a hard time which must exist under our constitution figure out how to

do that. yet, in the past year alone, look at the kind of hits they have taken on themselves not mandated by us. your carrier, 11,500 almost. rural carriers, 753 gone. mail handlers, 2,938 gone. last 10 years, postal service has lost 175 employees. show me a business that is left standing having taken those kind of hits, not because it's overspending but for reasons some of which are beyond their control. now the chairman, the ranking member and the whole committee is on their case for even further cuts. but the american people are on our case to make sure their mail keeps being delivered and that they are -- their trusty postal man is er