the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 421. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection the title is amended. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3980 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3980, a bill to provide for identifying and eliminating redundant reporting requirements and developing meaningful performance met ricks for homeland security preparedness grants and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device.

members, this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title of the the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 941, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4154, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the new carryover basis rules in order to prevent tax increases and the imposition of compliance burdens on many more estates than would benefit from repeals to retain the estate tax with a $3,500,000 exception and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. 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 incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20.

record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? the house will be in order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3570 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3570, a bill to amend title 17 united states code to re-authorize the satellite statutory license to conform the satellite and cable statutory license to all digital transmissions, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. i also further ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from

virginia, mr. rick boucher, be yielded 10 minutes of my time and that he be allowed to control that time. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i ask the house to be in order, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: madam speaker and members, h.r. 3570 extends the compulsory copyright license for satellite television providers for another five years as congress has done in each of the last two other cycles that this measure has been re-authorized. this is an important intellectual property law and will also make a number of critical updates and much needed clarifications to the compulsory

copyright licenses for both satellite and cable television. passage of this legislation before the end of the year is crucial. we must pass this bill in both bodies by december 31. and if we don't pass this bill, thousands of -- upon thousands of satellite television subscribers will lose their signals. in addition to simply re-authorizing the license, the bill ambitiously tackles several other issues for consumers. for content owners, and cable and satellite companies as well. for example, this bill restores the section 119 license to dish satellite network if they serve every market in the united states, even neglected rural

markets. the bill also resolves the phantom signal problem that is causing stability and confusion for the cable and content industries to the detriment of consumers. in addition, the bill provides an audit right to content owners so that they can be sure that they are being fairly compensated for the use of of their intellectual property. it significantly increases penalties for copyright infringement under the licenses and updates the licenses to reflect the national digital television transition. . the judiciary committee marked this bill up in september, reported it with a unanimous vote of 34-0. since the markup, we worked

with the energy and commerce committee which has jurisdiction over communications policy. the bill that we vote on today is a combined judiciary and commerce bill. title 1 contains the judiciary piece on copyright. title 2 contains the commerce piece on communications. the committees have done their best to respect each other's jurisdiction, and i thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation. now, since the markup, we made further improvements to the language, have attempted to address some concerns expressed by members of the committees. the changes include harmonizing, the so-called grandfathers provisions in the bill with shows --

grandfathering provisions in the bill. those that receive certain kind of programming are not abruptly cut off because of changes in the law. also, we provide a method for calculating the value of multicast programming streams under the section 111 license. strengthening the protections for copyright owners in the qualified carrier provision which provides an incentive for a satellite carrier to serve every market in the united states. increasing the effectiveness of the national emergency provision and authorizing a study of how the compullsary licenses may be phased out in favor of direct negotiation for copyrights over time without disrupting the television

marketplace. title 1 also includes a savings clause to make absolutely clear that the changes we make and issues we address have no application to communication laws unless specifically mentioned. the committee is amending the cable and satellite licenses to reflect the digital transition, something new, and multicasting in particular as it pertains to copyright law only. nothing in this title should be used as a basis for conclusions concerning cable and satellite regulation in areas where congress has not yet spoken. among the many members who contributed to this progress,

i'd like to single out in particular my good friend from virginia, rick boucher, who served in a duo role as the senior member of the judiciary committee. and the chair of the telecommunications subcommittee. i also must thank lamar smith, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, for helping work to improve the bill in several ways. of course, the distinguished chairman of energy and commerce , chairman henry waxman, and ranking member barton, all for their counsel and cooperation that made this legislation possible. we've been working on these issues for more than a year now, and the result is the consensus bill among just about all of the industry's

stakeholders, including satellite and cable companies, studios, sports leagues, public television and several others. most importantly, it's a bill that improves service to television consumers and fosters efficiency and competition between cable, satellite and broadcasters. the satellite license expires in less than a month, december 31, and we must be -- have this re-authorized without delay to avoid the immediate loss of service to tens of thousands of satellite consumers. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at this point an exchange of letters between myself and the chairman of homeland security committee, bennie thompson.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: so i ask my lesion to support this important legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, h.r. 3570, the satellite home viewer re-authorization act of 2009, in my judgment is the single most copyright bill congress will consider this year. the legislation combines two separate bills, h.r. 3570, which was introduced by chairman conyers and reported by the judiciary committee on september 16, 2009, and h.r. 2994, which is the energy and commerce committee's related measure that contains amendments to the communications act. the combined bill extends the compulsary license of section 119 of the satellite act that

requires distant networking to subscribers. there still remains about one million households that will lose such programming if the license is not extended beyond the end of this year, which is currently -- when it is currently due to expire. to avoid this outcome, the bill extends the license an additional five years to december 31, 2014. my hope is that this will be the last time congress needs to re-authorize what was originally envisioned to be a temporary license. h.r. 3570 also contains a number of significant amendments to the cable license in section 111 of the copyright act governing the retransmission of both local and distant programming and the local programming license in section 122 that governs the satellite retransmission of local -- into local programming. the most significant immediate

change to the cable license is the negotiated resolution of the phantom signal liability issue that i appreciate the chairman including in this bill. in fact i commend the chairman, chairman conyers, for his decision to expand this re-authorization beyond the narrow limits of the expiring section 119 provision. while circumstances prevented us from being able to iron out all of the wrinkles from these related licenses, i'm pleased we were able to make substantial improvements and address some of the most urgent concerns. among the elements for which there was bipartisan support to include in this bill are provisions that, one, modernize the license to account for digital broadcasting. two, preserve the ability of consumers to continue to receive lifeline network programming. three, make clear that copyright owners are generally entitled to a royalty for each stream of multicast programming. and, four, establish a new right to permit copyright owners to make sure they are being paid royalties they are

entitled to. madam speaker, i have strong reservations about the decision to permit dish network to again benefit from section 119's distant signal license in light of the infringement. i want to make sure that more americans can benefit from satellite into local programs. i'm grateful for chairman conyers' recognition of the seriousness of these concerns and his willingness to work with me and chairman berman. the enhanced penalties we've included for any future violation, along with provisions that requires the g.a.o. to audit dish with the compliance with the law and dish to certify its compliance to a district court, reflects substantial improvements from previous versions of the bill. the incorporation of these provisions reflect a carefully negotiated and fair compromise. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 357

o, the satellite home viewer re-authorization act. when enacted this bill will both preserve and expand the ability of americans to view vital network and independent station programming without interruption. madam speaker, again, i want to thank the chairman for working with us to come up with a good bipartisan product. and this bipartisan effort, by the way, has gone on since last february. and i'd like to recognize several staff members on both sides of the aisle who've contributed so much to the success of this legislation. those staff members would include david whitney, sitting to my left here on the house floor on our side. and on the majority side, it would be stacy, the chief copyright counsel, and elizabeth kendall, counsel as well. i thank chairman conyers, again, for his cooperative efforts in getting this bill to the house floor today. and i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, the senior member of the commerce

committee, be able to control the remainder of the time. and with that i'll reserve the balance of the time and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: madam speaker, may i pursuant to our agreement yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of his committee on energy and commerce, mr. rick boucher, and i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record at this point a more detailed description of the changes that have been made in the bill since it was reported? and i yield with pleasure to chairman boucher. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boucher: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding the customary 10 minutes to the energy and commerce committee. at this time i'd like to yield for such time as he may consume

to the gentleman from the state of california, the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3570, the satellite home viewer re-authorization act of 2009. i want to commend mr. boucher, chairman of the subcommittee on communications, technology and the internet, as well as subcommittee ranking member stearns, for their hard work on this bill. mr. boucher's been working on these issues since the first satellite tv bill in 1988, and he and his staff have been a tremendous resource for all of us as this bill has moved forward. of course, i also want to thank and recognize mr. barton and his staff for their work on this legislation. this has been a bipartisan effort from the start of the 111th congress, and i appreciate the cooperative manner in which this legislation was processed.

this bill is an important step forward for consumers. the communications provisions of this bill update the communications act to take account of the transition to digital television. the bill makes changes to the existing rules on, quote, significantly viewed, end quote, signals in an effort to promote competition between satellite and cable companies. it directs the f.c.c. to study issues that directly impact consumers, and it establishes a regime that should bring for the first time satellite delivered local television programming, so-called local into local service to communities throughout the country that currently lack such service. these can be arcane issues, but they determine the availability of satellite delivered video programming to american households. it involves communications and copyright law and we need aztec nothing evolves to revisit the

issues and strike the right policy balance. the task of combining separate energy and commerce and judiciary committee bills into a single product was complex and time consuming, but the final product is a balanced bipartisan measure, and i'd like to commend chairman conyers, ranking member smith, and judiciary committee staff for working cooperatively with the energy and commerce committee to produce a final bill. the bill before us incorporates the language of h.r. 3570 as well as h.r. 2994. h.r. 3570 was referred solely to the committee on judiciary while h.r. 2994 was referred solely to the committee on energy and commerce. the members of both committees worked diligently on their respective bills to address issues within the jurisdiction of each committee, and both committees filed reports on their separate bills. accordingly, the legislative

history of h.r. 3570 incorporates the legislative history of h.r. 2994. the judiciary committee title of this bill concerns the use of compulsary copyright licenses by cable and satellite companies to retransmit broadcast television programming. the re-authorization and refinement of these provisions will serve to promote competition for paid television services and to ensure that consumers can continue to benefit from this competition. the judiciary committee wisely chose to address for the first time the existence of the so-called multicast signals and how these signals are being treated with respect to the compulsary copyright license. it is important to note, however, that the judiciary committee's treatment of multicast signals does not and should not have any bearing on the treatment of multicast signals and other regulatory or statutory context.

. it is limited in application to copyright law. it is imperative that the way multicast signals are treated underp copyright law cannot be confused with the way multicass -- multicast signals are treated under consumer law. and provisions of this bill do not affect copyright law beyond what is explicitly intended by the act. to address this concern, the legislation includes savings clauses that make clear that the melding of two complicated statutes should not lead to changes in title 47 or title 17 beyond the scope of this re-authorization. these clauses are important provisions designed to avoid unintended consequences. some i believe we have before us -- in sum i believe we have before us a carefully crafted bill that strikes a balance among legal and policy matters. the bill is good for consumers and i urge my colleagues to vote

to approve this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. my colleagues, this bill is about 100 pages and the judiciary committee had probably , the majority of this bill. we start at page 74, title 2, and the preponderance is in the judiciary. but the bill is critical in the sense that this act itself is going to expire at the end of this month. we need to make sure that this passes. this has been a great display of bipartisanship. you had two committees, the judiciary committee and the energy and commerce committee. had separate bills, just like they have in the senate, the senate has a separate bill in their commerce committee and also in the judiciary. but we have come together and it's a tribute to mr. boucher

and mr. waxman, as well as mr. barton that we came together here in the house of representatives in bipartisan bill and we now have it on the floor. and we are hopeful that the senate will do the same thing because at this point they haven't and we might have to have an extension. i hope not. but i think it's been outlined pretty much some of the aspects about it so i'm going to concentrate on the areas that deal with telecommunications, a committee i serve as ranking member. the communication act provision makes clerical and substantive changes to reflect the end of analog broadcasting. that's a statement in itself with the new digital spectrum. they also require an f.c.c. report on weather the signal strength and standards for distance signal eligibility should be modified in light of the dtv transition. to implement the deal, dish has struck with broadcasters to regain authority free throw vide distant signals if they offer

local into local service in all 210 markets. it clarify that nothing in this act must carry rights. nothing in this act affects must carry rights. clarify that if a subscriber starts receiving from their satellite operator the network programming from a local station's multicast stream, the subscriber shall no longer receive a distant signal carrying the network's programming. include language clarifying the restriction on use of compulsory licenses do not limit private deals negotiated without compulsory licenses. such as to provide in-state programming to orphaned counties. requires an f.c.c. report analyzing, one, the number of households that received out-of-state signals, two, the extent to which consumers have access to in-state programming, and three, whether there are

alternatives to use of existing neilsen defined markets. earlier lamar smith, the gentleman from texas, mentioned there's some things that have to be ironed out. i think that's true. while it still contains in this bill a provision we proowe -- opposed in committee that tries to twist the dish's arm into carrying public broadcasting stations in high definition format, i was one that spoke against this, the additional views in the committee report reflect our concerns and that there is a chance that provision will become moot. since obviously the parties in negotiation were hoping for a favorable negotiation. so that will work itself out. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. boucher: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boucher: and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boucher: in a collaborative process, the house energy and commerce and judiciary committee s are presenting to the house this afternoon a renewal of the satellite home viewer act provisions of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. the act enables the delivery by satellite of distant network signals to homes that cannot receive network programming from a local television station. we are taking the opportunity of this re-authorization to achieve a long held goal of having all 210 local television markets across the nation uplinked by satellite for retransmission of those local stations back into the market of their origination. the goal is to ensure that satellite tv subscribers

everywhere will be be able to receive both national television programs and local tv stations that serve their area. at the present time, there are 28 local television markets and rural areas in various places of the nation that do not have local television signals delivered by either of the major satellite television carriers. and much of our effort this year has been directed toward finding a way to obtain satellite carriage of these 28 world markets for local television signals. earlier this year following extensive discussions with the company, i received a letter from echostar, a company commonly known in the trade as the dish network, agreeing to uplink for local retransmission all 210 local television markets upon certain conditions. one condition is that the

company receive the ability in our legislation to import into the markets distant network signals in order to supply the missing networks in the markets that do not have a full complement of the networks represented by local affiliates. the bill that we are presenting today grants that permission. if echostar in fact provides local tv service in all 210 television markets nationwide. another condition of the company's willingness to serve all 210 markets is that the law not impose new carriage obligations that the company would have to devote its satellite capacity in order to meet. while the bill does impose some new carriage obligations, i'm optimistic that they will not be so extreme as to prevent echostar from launching local tv service in all 210 local markets over the coming year. providing local tv service in

the 28 currently unserved local markets will make local tv news, sports, weather, essential emergency information, and locally originated programs available in every part of the nation. a goal that we are now very close to achieving. serving the 28 now unserved local tv markets involves a major expenditure by echostar for ground-based facilities in each of the currently unserved markets, and for the launch in 2010 of a new satellite that itself will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. i want to commend echostar for expressing a willingness to make these very substantial investments if we pass legislation that meets the conditions i previously described. and i think our legislation does. i also commend television broadcasters and directv, the other major satellite television provider, both of which groups playedly constructive roles as

our negotiations proceeded. i want to thank the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, a member of our commerce committee, for bringing to our attention and very -- in very forceful terms the need to serve all of the 28 currently unserved local television markets across our nation. the bill before us makes other changes needed to harmonize the satellite carriage licenses with the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. and it will result in more high definition carriage of public broadcasting television under the terms of an amendment that was offered by the gentlelady from california, ms. eshoo, and adopted during commerce committee consideration of our bill. i want to say thank you this afternoon to chairman conyers and his excellent staff for the cooperation with my staff and with me as our two committees structured the bill that we present to the house this afternoon. and i want to say thank you to

the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for the highly constructive and cooperative bipartisan role that they have played in helping us move this measure through our two committees. madam speaker, i urge approval of the bill and i reserve any time i may have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, the distinguished ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, joe barton. mr. barton: thank you, congressman stearns. i probably won't take more than three minutes. i would -- just yield me three minutes. mr. stearns: i yield the gentleman just three minutes. mr. barton: if i go over you can gavel me down. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. barton: thank you. i rise in support of the satellite home viewer re-authorization act of 2009. i want to thank the majority on both the energy and commerce committee and the judiciary committee for working with the minority. this is one of those rare instances in this congress when there has been bipartisan cooperation and the result is a bill that both sides can support. the bill itself is an example of what congress should be about. it is an authorization bill with a finite authorization, in this case five years, that authorizes the transfer of satellite signals to home viewers who cannot get cable or over-the-air broadcast signals. the industry today is much different than it was 20 years ago when we first authorized the satellite home viewer act. and this bill reflects that. as we are transitioning to

digital television and high definition television, this bill takes those technical advances into consideration. which i think is -- which is a good thing. there's one provision in the legislation that is meddlesome from my point of view. we have adopted a provision that i opposed in committee that forces the dish network to carry high definition public stations, high definition signals for public broadcast stations. i'm not opposed to public television being broadcast in high definition, but i don't think it's the end of the world if dish chooses for right now not to carry those signals because they are engaged in a -- an upgrade of their base and won't be able to do so in their business model until 2013.

so congressional intervention in this bill in that case is something that i wish was not in the bill. there is a chance, however, that the parties will negotiate and this provision of the bill will become moot by the time of bill moves to the other body. with that said, madam speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. i want to compliment ranking member stearns. he's worked very hard on it. the staffs on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. and i would hope the congress will -- the house will pass this bill at the appropriate time. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. stearns: madam speaker, we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, there are no requests for speakers on this side. i enjoyed myself and had my full say. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, it's my pleasure to as much time as he may con-- she may consume to the gentlelady from tennessee, marsha blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i do rise in support of this bill and for those individuals that live in rural areas like my seventh district in tennessee. fixing a short market problem which we have heard discussed on this floor tonight is much more than just a convenience or i want to see tv issue. for us it is an issue of health and security and public safety. . and by working to expand the unserved customer, which we have done on a bipartisan basis in this bill, my constituents

in rural west tennessee counties like hardin and chester are now going to be able to get that distant satellite signal that we've discussed. and the reason it is important for us is because a couple years ago we had a devastating tornado that swept through west tennessee, touched down in our district, nearly three dozen tennesseans were killed and 150 people were seriously injured. communities were perilized and had significant difficulty receiving news alerts and communicating. and by fixing this short market problem we will all rest a little bit better knowing that should we be faced with any other such disaster of this magnitude that we will be better prepared and able to respond and to persevere. and i do want to take a moment to thank chairman conyers, chairman boucher, ranking member barton, and ranking

member stearns for all their hard work in fixing this short market issue and helping to resolve this issue for my constituents in tennessee. as has been said, the bill's not perfect, and there is an area that has been mentioned mandating that a private company like dish network carry public broadcasting in high def really does go against free market principles. i do know that is going to continue to be worked on. we are looking forward to getting that issue resolved. i thank the speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: 7 1/2 minutes. mr. stearns: ok. i yield such time as she may consume, the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. lum lum -- mrs. lummis: thank

you, madam speaker. i ask to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. lummis: i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee for inclusion of language from my bill on statewide public television. passage of this language will remove the legal obstacles for satellite carriers to offer statewide public television in wyoming and other states. i don't care whether it's in high def or not. i just want public television carried in wyoming and other states. and that has been achieved. so thank you kindly. i also thank the gentleman from georgia, mr. deal, who worked diligently to address the problem of local television market areas. despite his good work, i rise today to express regret for the missed opportunity the passage of this bill represents. the decision to put off for another five years any real reform to the system of designated market areas carries with it very negative consequences for the citizens of my state.

of wyoming's 23 counties, 16 do not have satellite access to wyoming-based stations. over half of all television households in wyoming do not have access to local television. for a rural state like wyoming, satellite sometimes represents the only viable option to receiving television programming. the inability to receive local stations restricts access to local content and severely limits the reach of emergency notifications. emergency situations, like the butane tank truck that recently overturned on an icy highway during a blizzard should serve as proof that the availability of local stations on satellite television is not just an entertainment issue. the d.m.a. system may make sense for the densely populated areas in the east, but it has created an absurdity in this --

in the sparsely populated areas in the west. i am grateful to determine what a local market is. but, madam speaker, people in wyoming do not need a study to tell them that when their network tv stations originate 400 miles away from a different state they are not receiving the local content they need. for this reason i cannot support passage of this bill despite its tremendous improvements. and, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, we have no further speakers, so at this point, as i understand it, you folks have yielded back your time. so at this point i'll yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3570 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. conyers: madam speaker, i rise to ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena for production of documents issued by the u.s. district court for the district of connecticut in connection with a criminal matter now pending in the same court. after consultation with the office of the general counsel i have determined that a compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. siped sincerely, daniel -- signed sincerely, daniel p. beard. the speaker pro tempore: do any members seek recognition for one-minute speeches? the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> 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. mccotter: madam speaker, tonight i rise to acknowledge the michigan division i state high school football champions, the detroit catholic central shamrocks. on november 27, 2009, the shamrocks defeated a fine sterling heights stevenson team 31-21. the victory earned the head coach his 10th state championship in his 34 seasons leading the shamrocks. the team's hard work, mental toughness and burning desire epitomizes what it means to be a shamrock molded by the fathers to teach men goodness, discipline and knowledge. truly, this accomplishment is shared by the entire c.c. family. madam speaker, meeting the challenge of an undefeated record of 14-0, i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the detroit catholic central shamrocks upon winning their michigan state championships and they are men who inspire us ever more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one? -- for one-minute speeches?

the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. larsen of washington after 1:30 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for december 8 and 9. ms. ros-lehtinen for today and december 3. mr. jones for december 8 and 9. mr. burton for today, december 3 and 4. mr. moran for today, december 3, 4, 7, 8, 9. mr. broun for today. and ms. foxx for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise?

>> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous materials. ms. lee of california. mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. ms. woolsey of california. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. doggett of texas. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. grayson of florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. wolf, virginia. ms. lee, california. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. first, i want to commend president obama for thinking long and hard about the course he believes the united states should take in afghanistan. that kind of deliberation is a welcome change from the previous administration. i also want to commend him for making it crystal clear that the united states of america condemns torture. unfortunately, on the issue of troop levels in afghanistan i believe the president has reached the wrong conclusion. sending 30,000 more u.s. troops to afghanistan will make it 30,000 times harder to extraindicate ourselves from this mess. if our fight is truly with al qaeda, then we're in the wrong country. they have moved to pakistan. indeed, general jones has told us that there are maybe less than 100 al qaeda members in afghanistan.

with the troop increase announced by the president last night, we will have over 100,000 u.s. service men and women in afghanistan. do we really need 100,000 troops to go after less than 100 al qaeda? president karzai is corrupt and incompetent. he cheated in the most recent election. by most estimates 30% of his vote was rigged. i don't want any more american service men or women to risk their life for his corrupt government. and i am a little bit stunned, quite frankly, by the quick pivot by the administration from rightly denouncing karzai's behavior to now embracing him as our dear friend. i think our support for karzai actually discredits us with the afghan people. we have seen that it is exceedingly difficult to train afghan troops. many of whom are not only illiterate but unable to add or subtract.

the cost of this escalation will be enormous. both in terms of blood and treasure. we will need to borrow billions and billions of additional dollars to pay for this policy. madam speaker, at a time of great economic crisis here in the united states, i would suggest that rather than nation building in afghanistan we should do a little more nation building here at home. it is important to note that the so-called time line outlined by the president last night envisions the beginning of drawing down our troops in july of 2011. the beginning, not the end. does anybody really believe that we will not be deeply -- will be in afghanistan beyond 2011? madam speaker, i don't think we should abandon the afghan people. they have suffered greatly over the last several decades. we should continue to support meaningful economic development and political assistance. but finally, madam speaker,

there is another important issue here and that is congressional involvement. i know the president last night cited the resolution to authorize force in 2001 as providing the authority he needs. i would argue that it was not congress' intent in 2001 to authorize decades of nation building in afghanistan. we voted to go after the people who committed a horrible atrocity on september 11. i would urge that before a single additional troop is sent that the united states congress have the chance to fully debate his proposal and have an up or down vote. under the bush administration, what usually happened, is that additional troops were deployed and then later once they were already in theater the administration would submit a supplemental request. that's backwards. we should debate and vote on this critical issue before we send additional troops. madam speaker, this is a big deal. this is a major escalation, and congress has a major role to play. i would urge my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to continue to ask the tough questions and to continue to play our constitutional role. thank you, madam speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: permission to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, over the past several weeks evidence has come to light of fraud and corruption in the global warming scientific community or as it is now called the climate change community. these shady scientists have made claims of a global warming apocalypse and created fear in the world that we're all doomed because man is the enemy destroyer of planet earth. but now thousands of their emails were recently leaked to the public. these emails, written by scientists at the british university, exposed fraud and corruption in their global

warming claims. now climb gate is being exposed. these snake oil salesmen have been caught in their lies to the world. these are the very scientists who formed the foundation for world global warming claims. american politicians, the united nations, everyone claiming that the world is headed for this global warming catastrophe base their views on this information. in these emails these scientists conspired to destroy their own email discussion of data that contradicts their global warming claims. they discussed discrediting members of the scientific community who disagree with them. they even wish some of these dissenting scientists were beaten. now isn't that lovely when you have an opposition? phil jones, the director of the climate research unit at the university of east anglia in england, wrote in his now leaked

emails, affording access to the data by those who doubt global warming. he talked about getting around british freedom of information requests. he didn't want other scientists to get his data because they could expose flaws and faults in his global warming claims. but the bread and butter of these global warming claims coming from what these scientists say is a consensus within the scientific community. now we learn there is not a consensus about global climate change. the emails show numerous actions taken to silence the dissenting voices and with hold the actual information being used to make their questionable claims. now the british university says they're going to release all of their data now. but the scientists have already admitted that they destroyed much of that data. obviously they destroyed the data that shows their theory on climb change is a ruse, it is a fraud on the world. that doesn't look like sound

science to me. it sounds like they have cooked the books. it sounds like they've picked up an outcome -- or picked out an outcome and are trying to fix the data to make it say what they wanted it to say. it sounds like a political agenda. world economies depend on these claims that have clearly been manipulated. the u.n. global warming summit in copenhagen that starts next monday, december 7, is using this tainted information. the united nations wants to exert more control over world energy and emissions and the sovereignty of nations using information that is apparently now faulty. it's tainted with scandal and it's deceitful. how account american people trust any of these claims when they have clearly been manipulated? well, the american public can be fooled no longer -- by these pseudo scientists. one may ask why would these scientists skew the facts?

well, it's obvious. governments all over the world give climate change individuals in the climb change crowd millions of dollars in money to study climate change. and if it's a falsehood, these scientists may fear that their money will dry up. the jury is still out on the global warming theory and the climate change myth. before congress passes any legislation based on this theory regarding manmade climate change, we ought to have an open, honest debate from real scientists who don't manipulate the evidence to get an outcome-based conclusion. further the e.p.a. should halt all carbon emissions regulations of the energy community until we learn the facts about climate change. honesty is a prerequisite for conclusions about climate change legislation. and now we learn that climate change is not a well settled scientific fact at all. whether the mad scientists at

the university of anglia like that fact or not. and that's just the way it is. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. poe. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday on world aids day the administration announced its proposed five-year strategy for the president's emergency plan for aids relief otherwise known as petfar. the strategy is required by the tom lantos and henry j. hyde united states global leadership against hiv-aids, tuberculosis and malaria reauthorization act of 2008. that's a mighty long name. but it does so much good. and it begins to shift petfar

from an emergency program to one focus on sustainability. mr. speaker, the challenges of fighting hiv-aids are daunting but not unsurmountble. over 33 million people worldwide are infected and an estimated 67% of whom liven in subsaharan africa. nearly 2.7 million people including 434,000 children were newly diagnosed with h.i.v. last year. over 14 million children have lost one or both parents to hiv-aids. aids is decimating an entire generation of the most productive members of society in developing countries which will cause g.d.p. to drop by more than 20% in the hardest hit countries over the next decade. without effective prevention, treatment and care efforts, the aids pandemic will continue to

spread its mix of death, poverty and derespondencey that is destabilizing governments and societies and undermining the security of entire regions. but one need not travel to africa or the caribbean or eastern europe to witness the devastation of hiv-aids. we need only look out the front door. in my home state of florida, for example, mr. speaker, an estimated 90,000 people are living with hiv-aids, making us third in the nation in the number of aids cases. my home county of miami-dade ranks second among large metropolitan areas for people living with aids with over 32,000 currently diagnosed. these individuals need our assistance. they are fighting this disease. on october 21 of this year with a bipartisan majority we voted in congress to re-authorize the ryan white hiv-aids treatment

extension act. the ryan white program has been the largest supplier of services for those living with hiv-aids in the united states. in the united states over 500,000 people a year benefit from the ryan white program. florida alone received over $209 million in funding with ryan white funds in 2009 and has been able to assist countless low income americans living with hiv-aids. fully appreciative of the challenges here at home i am proud to have supported petfar since its insection. to date it has proven to be a highly effective and results-oriented program. for example, more than half of the four million people receiving life saving drugs in low and middle income countries around the world are directly supported through petfar. petfar has supported care for more than 10 million people

affected by hiv-aids including more than 10 million orphans and vulnerable children. and at least 240,000 babies have been born free of hiv-aids thanks to petfar prevention of mother to child transmissions. the achievements of our bilateral programs are truly remarkable. however, the record of our multilateral organizations is problematic. while we need more robust burden sharing, particularly as the world health organization has revised its guidelineses and vastly expanded the pool of people who require access to treatment, while significant revelations of corruption in the global fund program are a cause for great concern. mr. speaker, we must work together to ensure accountability, transparency and maximum effectiveness of multilateral programs that are receiving united states support.

we must work to ensure that every dime that is dedicated to petfar, including our contributions to the global fund, is used for its intended purposes and delivered in the most effective, transparent and sustainable manner possible. we must ensure that those precious resources actually reach those who are in need. without being diverted to line the pockets of unaccountable international bureaucrats or corrupt regimes. lastly, mr. speaker, we must also preserve the conscience clause and promote behavior modification particularly abstinence and if i dealt under the new strategy. in closing, mr. speaker, let us recommit ourselves to saving the future by helping to save lives inflicted with hiv-aids. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, madam.

is ms. woolsey here? ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, after the tragedy of 9/11 i voted for the resolution to authorize military action against those who -- who attacked us, including sending our troops into afghanistan. we sent a strong unionified medge that we will never yield to terrorism. we have not just the right but the duty to keep america secure. i certainly agreed with taking out osama bin laden. it is outrageous that the bush-cheney-rumsfeld administration failed to stop him. unnecessarily prolong this conflict, strengthened our enemies as their attention and our resources were diverted to an ideologically driven invasion of iraq. surely all americans should

respond affirmatively to president obama's call last night for unity of purpose in keeping our families secure and overcoming all of those who would do us harm. i agree with so very much of what president obama said but not so much with what and how he said he would accomplish our shared goal. it's true he had no really good and easy alternatives and i applaud his deliberative effort. but the path to peace and security will not be found through a wider war. it is wholly unrealistic to expect that we can escalate our military forces in the harsh faraway landscape of afghanistan by another 40% then deescalate and begin bringing them home all within a mere 18 months. week of been fighting in afghanistan on the installment plan, a few more troops, a few

more months and a whole lot more money, billions. there is no way that 2011 will mark the end of this war or even the beginning of the end. this is just a mirage. in 18 months the reasons may vary but the next installment will be requested in what is already a deteriorating war that has lasted eight years with the illusive end of the war always just over the horizon. the better exit strategy is to have fewer troops who need to exit. we should honor the sacrifice of those are courageously serving and put fewer of them into harm's way. it should not take 100,000 highly equipped and trained american troops to defeat less than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan , an estimate yesterday from the president's national security advisor. and once again we hear talk of a

grand coalition, but make no mistake, it is americans who are being asked to bear the overwhelming share of the burden. as these troops would arrive in afghanistan, the canadians, the dutch, they've already announced they'll be bringing their troops home at the same time our people get there. the french, the germans, they've said not one more troop. spain may increase its total to 1,200. iceland has two, lument amburg has nine. every bit of help counts certainly, but it's clear that the great amount of blood that will be spilt will once again be american and the cost will be to the american taxpayer. now the united states army doctrine as written by general petraeus calls for one counterinsurgent for every 50 members of the population. in afghanistan with a population of 30 million that would work out to about half a million additional troops, not 30,000.

whatever the exact number is, it is clear that to meet the military's own objectives more installments are in order. all this effort to prop up a corrupt karzai government that just stole over a million votes to keep you itself in power -- to keep itself in power as it attempts to control a fraction of the country of afghanistan. my fellow americans, we must chart a better course. congress has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinize this request carefully as well as how to pay for it. to find a better way, to achieve our shared goals of protecting every american family, to do otherwise will leave us embroiled in an afghanistan that can consume as it has throughout human history as many lives and as many dollars as we are willing to expend there. and such a painful, unending

sacrifice may well make our families less, not more, secure. i yield back. . mr. paul: i claim five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: we have had a lot of discussion about afghanistan and whether or not we should send more troops. that debate has been going on for a long time. the whole debate about afghanistan is something that makes me think that we are bogged down considering the fact that it has been going on for eight years. and this is not new for us. this is more or less the rule rather than the exception. and i believe this comes about because of the way we go to war. in the last 60 some years, we never had a declaration of war, but have been involved in plenty. korea, vietnam, persian gulf,

iraq war and now afghanistan and looks like it's going to be pakistan as well. so i think the reason we get here is because we don't declare war and we slip into war. and then it becomes political. there are two sides. there is one side of the argument that says, just come home and the other side says fight it all out and people say you have to have a balance and the balance is chaotic. no way of measuring victory and nobody wants to give up, claiming this would be humiliating to give up. think of the tragedy of vietnam, all those years, deaths and money that was spent and eventually we left and vietnam is a unified country. we still have troops in korea and in europe and in japan. and we are bankrupt. some day, we are going to have

to look at the type of foreign policy that the founding fathers advised us to have and that is nonintervention, don't get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. have free and open trade and accept our friendship with other countries who offer it. and we shouldn't be the policemen of the world. and we shouldn't be telling other people what to do. we cannot be the policemen of the world and pay for all these bills because we are literally bankrupt. in thinking about the dilemma that we have, i think back, even back in the 1960's when i was an air force flight surgeon for five years and that was the first time i heard the term quagmire. and thinking about that for many, many years, that's all i can think about right now is to evaluate what we have. and there are a few phrases that have been around for a long

time. and i believe morals describe what's happening here. quagmire. certainly, that is what we are doing. digging a hole for ourselves. perp tall war for perp tall peace. war is the health of the state. we know the sacrifice. occurs much more so in the midst of a war. a book written many years ago by one of the most if not the most decorated soldier we ever had, butler, he wrote the book "war is a racket" and it is a racket for the people who push these years, whether it is the military industrial complex or special interests or various factions. but it's not for the people. today, it is said that we're over there to protect our

national security. there are only 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. and quite frankly, the afghan government had nothing to do -- they said they har borrowed al qaeda, and that is true. do you think they needed to do pushups in afghanistan and come over here. the real planning was in spain, it was in germany. where was the real training? the real training was in florida. the training was in florida and the f.b.i. has evidence at the time that they were being trained and was totally ignored. and we are still back to 9/11, fear of nuclear war, we have to go in and scare the people. yet, what is the motivation for individuals to become radical against us, whether in the taliban or al qaeda? there is one single factor that is the most ininfluential in

motivating to commit suicidal terrorism and that is occupation by a foreign nation. and now, where have we occupied? iraq, afghanistan, we are bombing pakistan. not only the literal occupation, but also -- also, we have this threat on pakistan. so i would say it's time for us to re-assesses ourselves and look at a noninterventionist foreign policy and i yield back. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: before you do -- without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized.

mr. moran: i recognize a remarkable gift that will enhance the education of our country's military officers and improve the safety and security of every american. in november, mr. ross perot pledged $6.1 million to support the u.s. army command and general staff college located at fort levenworth, kansas. at a time when our country is demanding so much from those in uniform, the significant contribution will ensure that america's military leaders receive the best education and training to accomplish their missions around the world. mr. perot's contribution followed a recent visit to fort levenworth. he experienced the classroom instruction that officers and interagency and international counterparts receive at the army's command and general staff college, our country's largest and oldest staff college. he toured the lewis and clark center, a building completed in

2007 to house the college. mr. perot's gift will fund a new center for interagency cooperation and new chair of ethics. as the conflict in iraq and afghanistan makes clear, cooperation between military and other agencies is an important component for our country's success. to address this need, the colonel arthur d. simon center for study of interagency cooperation will understand the affairs. the second is the general hugh elton ethics center and will stress the importance of ethics and values in the military. rather than naming these, mr. perot chose to name them after others. simons fleed prisoners of war and 1979 mission to rescue from a prison in tehran two of his

employees. hugh shelton served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a friend of mr. perot. he named his initiatives after military members who have played an important role in his life. this gesture is a testament to his character and patriotism. i commend him for his generous and continued support of our armed forces and want to commend retired colonel bob owen as part of the foundation was instrumental in securing this tremendous pledge and growing the foundation generally. since its inception in 2005 as a not for profit, the college has offered many programs and activities to promote excellence, including awards for students and faculty and community outreach activities. for 128 years, the command at general staff college has served as the intellectual part of the army producing numerous world

and military leaders. the next marshall, eisenhower or prays may be sitting in a classroom in fort levenworth, kansas today. we thank ross perot for his support to our men and women in the military and grateful for fort levenworth, kansas. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the alyields back. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. burton of indiana. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. grayson of florida. mr. brown of georgia -- mr. broun of georgia. for what purpose does does the gentleman rise? mr. broun: to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. broun: mr. speaker, the

economic engine that pulls along the economic train of prosperity in america is being derailed. america's entrepreneurs, america's small businessmen and women are this country's economic engine. they are the backbone of our economy. they create most of the new jobs here in america. mr. speaker, they have waited long enough for the so-called stimulus to kick in. in fact, they have been waiting for it too long. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? it's time for us to scrap this failed policy. it's time for congress to stop wasting taxpayer time and money. it's time to give a real jolt to the economy and stop talking -- stop taking so much through high taxes and more debt. mr. speaker, i introduced h.r. 4100, the jobs act, to do just

that. my bill, the jump-starting our business sector or jobs act, is a commonsense and simple approach. it provides a two-year moratorium on capital gains and dividend taxes, two taxes which directly inhibit or derail a business's ability to re-invest their revenue into creating new jobs. it reduces the two lowest tax brackets by 5%. it cuts the payroll tax rate and self-employment tax rate in half for two years. additionally, it reduces the corporate tax rate by 10% for two years. in fact, the united states already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. it's incredible that our economy has prospered for this long under such an extraordinary tax burden. at this time of great economic

turmoil, it is only logical to curtail this massive tax and allow our business sector to propel us back onto a stable economic footing. finally, just as important, my jobs act recupes any and all unspent stimulus dollars putting them to work instead toward waste. now is the time for a new way forward. 11 months, the so-called stimulus has been tried and tested. unfortunately, it has failed. but there is no reason to keep going down the same track and throwing taxpayers' money down a rat hole towards a failed plan. and there is no reason to keep sending money into georgia's imagine area georgia congressional district, 00, 27, 86 or others that the government has identified.

the american people demand something better than more government and more debt. they deserve more, something better more than unemployment insurance and cobra extensions. we need to stop handing them dead fish and instead hand them a fishing pole. mr. speaker, i have introduced h.r. 4100, the jobs act, to answer their call. and i urge my colleagues to lend their support by co-sponsoring this important legislation and keeping that economic engine of small business on the right track to economic prosperity. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. foxx of north carolina. under the speaker's announceed policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized as the

designee of the minority leader mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. this evening our topic is going to be something that is of interest, i believe, to all americans, the topic of jobs. in the past we've talked

something about health care. in fact, weefpk talked about that for a number of months -- we've talked about that for a number of months but it seemed appropriate to me this evening to open our discussion on the subject of jobs. everybody in america is concerned about the subject. it is one of those things that affects everyone. and something that is not as clear and the solution to the jobs question is not as simple as it might appear on the surface and certainly we have some examples of politicians doing exactly the wrong thing. so i think it's important that we start and just analyze what it is that makes jobs and what are the enemies of job creation. i have listed about six of them here he that are the most common things that are destructive to jobs. the first would be a bad economy. it seems fairly self-evident. if the economy is not doing well

the thing that people tend to do is say, well, things aren't going so well, i need to cut my overhead and therefore we will cut some jobs and so that is one thing that affects jobs, a slow or poor economy. another thing that's extremely disastrous and very much -- basically stops the creation of jobs and maybe even gets rid of existing jobs is taxation. that also is fairly self-evident. let's just think for a minute, you're an owner of a small business and you have 100 people working for you and all of a sudden you find out, you read in the paper, that, here we go, the politicians one more time are going to be taxing and spending, they're going to increase your taxes and increase the taxes to your business. well, that has the same net effect of a bad economy because if all of a sudden you're expecting a big tax increase that your company is going to

have to pay or you're going to have to pay because you own the company, you're thinking, oh, my goodness, i don't have as much money to work with as i thought i did, i'm going to have to figure out ways to tighten belts and when you tighten the belt many times that means you get rid of either existing jobs by laying people off or perhaps you were thinking of creating new jobs and you decide, i think i'll wait on that expansion and buying that new piece of equipment and adding the addition to the building and adding those new jobs. so tax increases are also enemies of jobs. a third problem that can also affect jobs and that is what sometimes people call liquidity and that is the available supply of money. if you're a small businessman one of the things that you need in order to keep your business going is some source of loans or money to work with. most small businesses have loans

from local banks and they get those loans at a reasonable interest rate because many small businesses are very good and prompt payers, the banks trust them, the bank knows that the small business is solvent, that they run a good operation, that they're doing good work in the community. so the bank is taking that risk and is loaning that money at a fairly reasonable rate of interest. so the small businessman has this money or this liquidity in order to start paying for things that he needs in his business. i'll give an example of perhaps a farmer. a farmer has a nice piece of land and he decides he wants to raise some crops but in order to do that he need as tractor. and he doesn't have enough money to buy that tractor right off the bat with cash and so he gets a loan from the banks to buy -- bank to buy the tractor and then he uses the tracter to grow crops and produce a product which we call food. in the meantime as he makes

profit on selling his food he makes payments to the bank to pay for his tractor. this is a simple exact. but what is required -- example. but what is required for jobs and for small businesses to operate is liquidity. there has to be a supply of money that's available at a reasonable interest rate in order to facilitate the growth of businesses, particularly small businesses and jobs. so if there is not good liquidity, not a good source of money, then you're going to have a problem with jobs. a fourth enemy of job creation is uncertainty. again, put yourself in the shoes of that small businessman and you look out on the horizon and you see all kinds of things that you don't know what's going on and you're worried about what's going on. you know as you look out at the horizon that there's talk that these taxes that used to be low are going to go up. there's talk about taxes on energy, talk about taxes, hesky

taxes, on -- heavy taxes, on a new health care bill. there's the possibility of energy shortages, there's a possibility of anything that might be disruptive to your business. well, that uncertainty is going to have the effect of saying, hey, before i stick my neck out and do something new, i think i'm going to just instead sit back a little bit and wait because i don't want to be too far leveraged, i don't want to make too much of a commitment because i don't know what's going to happen. everybody is buying ammunition and hoarding gold and everybody's nervous and concerned. there's talk about this. so when you get uncertain, uncertainty makes it hard for business people to want to add jobs and it may reduce jobs. businesses work well when they have a plan. they know that they're going to have so many orders for so many

years, they know what they're going to build, they can plan out and buy their materials, get the equipment they need and get the man power and so when you want to mess up job creation in business all you do is introduce a lot of fear and uncertainty and you're guaranteed to be hurting jobs. the fourth -- fifth thing, excuse me, that is going to be harmful to job creation is a whole lot of regulations and red tape. if you're thinking about taking on some new project or something and you see just mountains of red tape, regulations and all kinds of legal fees and problems in front of you that the government has created then you're going to be a little bit more reluctant to jump into that project. i'll give you an example. for instance, let's say you're a power company and you have a number of coal-fired power plants. you take a look at what's going on and you take a look at the technology that's available and

you say, you know, i think that it would really make a lot of sense to build a nuclear plant because coal prices are going up, we know that nuclear is safe, we know it doesn't generate any co-2 so that should make people that are very worried about global warming happy and we think that it makes sense to put a nuclear power plant. but then you start to think and say, wait a minute, what are the regulations, what are the red tape and how does this work? and you start looking at the red tape and you find out, oh, my goodness, we apply for a license and after we get done building the plant which is going to cost millions and millions of dollars, then the government will tell us whether or not we can operate it. wait a minute that doesn't make sense. doesn't the government -- wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. doesn't the government give you the opportunity to operate the plant first? no, you have to get a permit first but you don't get any for sure that you can run that plant until after you've built it. well, that would be an example of red tape and regulations

making him say, i'm not going to make that decision, i'm not going to do the job of building some big plant, a more efficient way to generate electricity, because of the fact that we have all this red tape and regulations in the way. then i would suggest that there is a sixth thing that's a job killer and that is the excessive spending on the part of the federal government. when the federal government spend as whole lot of money it has the net effect of eventually costing businesses and the taxpayers all the money that they spend. so that's the idea of doing what's sometimed calls stimulus or spending actually is an enemy to jobs. we're going to get into that further along this evening. but i thought it would be important to start with let's just define our terms, jobs are important to all of us, that's what you need to pay your mortgage, that's what you need to pay the food bill for your wife and kids, jobs are an important thing in america and americans are lot happier when

they have something to work on, when they have a sense of paying off the mortgage and working their way toward the dream of a more prosperous future. and so these are the enemies of jobs. i'm going to review them one more time. first of all, a slow economy, second of all, taxes, the third thing is not enough liquidity, that is money, fourth, uncertainty or fear, fifth, red tape and government regulations and, sixth, the idea of excessive federal spending because that comes back in the form of taxes and reducing liquidity. i'm joined this evening by a very good friend of mine, congressman scalise, who has a very good sense of business and a good sense of humor and it is always a great -- and is always a great contributor to our little wednesday evening discussions. my good friend from louisiana, please, join us. mr. scalise: i want to thank my friend from missouri and we have

been having these discussions for, i go guess, the past few -- i guess, the past few wednesdays for the past few months now and i appreciate the gentleman for hosting this hour that's become a regular tradition not only to talk about the things that are happening in the country but really to focus in on the actions that have been taken here in this congress by this democratic leadership that have actually led us to the decline in jobs that we're facing today. and of course so many americans remember now back in the beginning of this year when president obama stood right there, right there on that well behind you, and talked about the need for a stimulus bill, a bill that spent $787 billion of money that we don't have, money that was borrowed from our children and grandchildren, and he said it had to happen so that we would stop unemployment from exceeding 8%. now, of course, today as we look at 10.2% unemployment the american people are asking,

where are the jobs? and of course when the white house came out with this website and the white house and the president bragged about the transparency and the fact -- and in fact the president talked about the fact that the american people would be able to track every dollar and even said that vice president joe biden would be in charge of tracking the money and the american people would be able to go to a website and see where that money from that stimulus bill is being spent and how it's creating all these jobs. and of course you and i opposed that bill because we knew it wouldn't create jobs. in fact, we knew it would help lead to more unemployment because it would add so much more money to our national debt, money that we couldn't afford to spend and money that was going to hurt small businesses and in fact did hurt small businesses. mr. akin: maybe if i could reclaim my time, i think the points that you're making are very, very good. i just want to recap what you're saying and that is that i had, just as we got started, talked about things that kill jobs. and one of the things that kills jobs is excessive government

spending and the first thing that you came to ironically was the supposedly stimulus bill which the president and the democratic leadership thought was going to improve the economy or at least they said that, that was what they claimed. in fact, the claim was, as you and i recall, that if we did not pass this $787 billion unfunded, supposedly, stimulus bill, we might get unemployment as high as 8%. we've seen unemployment go well beyond 8%. they passed that stimulus bill and now unemployment is 10.2%. that suggests just what we're talking about, that excessive government spending is, instead of making the situation better, will make it worse. but we were promised, as you were saying, by the administration, by the democrat president, that this was going to create some jobs and so they created a whole website, didn't they?

i yield. mr. scalise: in fact they created a website called recovery.gov and this is where the president said people can go and find out and track every dollar that's being spent and it's going to be fully transparent. i guess maybe the white house didn't think that the people were actually going to take him up on his offer but of course the american people did. and as people started going to that website we had uncovered this about two weeks ago, when you would go to the website, we found out, first of all, those of us in louisiana found out that we had about 45 congressional districts because they actually had a listing of how many jobs were created in louisiana's 45th congressional district. and of course they had -- they showed that more jobs were created from the stimulus bill in louisiana's eighth congressional district than in the district i represent. the only problem with that is louisiana only has seven congressional districts. many people in louisiana were asking, where's this eighth congressional district? and if all of this money, they showed millions of dollars -- mr. akin: i want to stop you.

what you're saying, people are going to think that this is either a comedy or a fiction. you're saying that we've put millions of federal dollars into creating a website to let people know where the jobs were being created by this supposedly stimulus bill and whoever it was that was hired said that the jobs were going into an eighth and a ninth and a 10th congressional district in louisiana and you being from louisiana know there's only seven districts. so you're saying the federal government hasn't figured out how many congressional districts there are in louisiana. that's amazing. mr. scalise: not only that. maybe this would be a comedy if it was fiction. the problem is, this is not fiction, this is reality. this is what the white house actually had on their website that was supposedly showing the transparency and accountability for all the tax dollars that they said that they would display how that money was being used. so our local newspaper, we had actually inquired about this and

our local newspaper zpw a little digging of their own and they called the white house and said, how is it that you can have this website that people are going to and you're showing districts that don't even exist, showing jobs created in places that don't exist, what's really going on here? and the first thing the white house said is, we're not certifying the accuracy of the information. that is the quote from the white house. they said they would be the most transparent administration in history, when finally passed, was showing the american people where billions of dollars of money that we don't have is being spent, their answer was, we're not certifying the accuracy of the information and then if i can follow up, they actually went further and say, ok, wait, hold on a second, maybe let's say you're not certifying the information but you're actually showing on your website districts and this isn't just in louisiana, we found this in arizona, connecticut, probably missouri -- mr. akin: 99 districts. mr. scalise: they were showing

districts that didn't exist all over the country and bragging about the jobs that were created in those districts that didn't exist, those phantom districts so they said, somehow it that you can show on your website a district that doesn't even exist? and the answer from the white house, and this is riveting, because this is taxpayer money, this is money our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back, money that should have not been spent in the first place, it wasn't going to create jobs and they asked the white house the follow-up and they said, how is it that you can show information that's false on your website and the white house's answer is, who knows, man? who really knows? that was the best they could come up with and the american people deserve better. . million dollar website created by the obama administration. they come up with districts that don't exist in various states and when asked, what was the quote again? this is really academic, who knows, man. far out, dude. what are we talking about here?

they are claiming jobs that have been created and here we were on the floor, we aren't wizards, but we know enough about small business that excessive federal spending is an enemy to it. what is it that the obama administration promise snd i happen to have the promise. here's who really knows. this is the forecast the unemployment if we passed the stimulus bill, which we did. this was the obama forecast without the stimulus bill. and what really happened? the red line is what's going on. this is unemployment after we spent $787 billion that we don't have, which really wasn't a stimulus bill. as you recall, the chief of staff for the president said we want to use every crises as an

opportunity to move our agenda. their agenda was to basically get rid of all the republican welfare reforms and add all kinds of money in all various bailouts. but there wasn't an f.d.r.-type stimulus in the bill. six months ago, we said, this isn't going to create any jobs. here we are at 10.2% unemployment. and that number is conservative, because if you lost your job for more than a year, you aren't in the report here. it doesn't couldn't you. and even not counting those people, 10.2% unemployment. so what's happened here is exactly what we talked about. mr. scalise: some of the economic experts are actually saying that the true unemployment number is probably closer to 17%, because there are

so many americans that just stopped looking for work because of the tough economic times. what we have pointed out back then in february, 10 months ago, we pointed out you don't create jobs by growing the size of government. you don't create jobs by borrowing money from our children and grandchildren. you create jobs by helping small businesses enjoy a climate where they can enjoy and create jobs because it's not government that creates jobs, it's small businesses. they create 70% of all the jobs in this country. they are the job creators. and what american families have been saying is, government, stop all of these policies that are literally shutting down companies and running jobs off to china and india. what we have seen is this cap and trade energy tax. that has been one of their answers that literally would run millions of jobs out to other

countries. then they came back with -- they had the bailouts and the stimulus bill and then the budget that doubled the national debt in five years. and after cap and trade, they came with the health care bill, the government takeover of health care, which they're still putting it as their top priority. president obama is using that as his top priority when the people are saying, we don't want a government takeover of health care, but reform the things that are broken. and we presented legislation that actually fixes the problems to lower costs, to address pre-existing conditions, the real problems that american families are having. but what american families don't want to see is government takeover of health care and shift more people on to a medicare system that is already struggling to make ends meet and senior citizens know that. stop dealing with all of these policies that are running more jobs out of our country and create jobs in small businesses by lowering tax rates. tomorrow, the democratic

leadership is actually bringing a bill to make permanent the death tax at 45% tax rate. that is going to kill small businesses. and that is their priority instead of creating small jobs. mr. akin: what i would like to do is everything you have said is exactly spot on. it is the solution to trying to deal with unemployment. but i think what i would like to do if it's possible get a little philosophical here and talk about the fact that when you look at the political pearlts in general are these two different ideas about what you do when you got problems with unemployment. and one of them was proposed by a little british economist by the name of lord keynes and he was accompanied in his mischief by a fellow of the name of

morgenthau, secretary of the treasury. that was called, quote stimulating the economy. the idea was if the government would just spend enough money, it's going to create demand and therefore the whole economy will run. it appeals to me as an engineer about just as much as the idea of grabbing your boot straps and lift yourself so you can fly around the room. the idea is, when you have a bad economy, the government should spend money like mapped and quote, stimulate the economy. that was one theory. another theory that was developed, get your foot off of the spending and the taxing, leave enough money in the economy and particularly with small business owners to allow them to invest. when they invest, they create jobs and you allow the free market and you allow markets in the ingenuity of americans to motivate and build america

bigger and stronger than before and individual citizens, not the government, are the ones that create the jobs. that was another formula. that was tried by j.f.k., also by ronald reagan and g.w. bush. all got off the taxes, left more money in the pocket of small businessmen and the economy takes off like a rocket in all three instances. the other example, you got thr guy marchingen thaw and here it is, 1939. now we have turned a resession into the great depression. and he comes before the ways and means committee. people should know something about it. and this is what morgenthau. this was the buddy of little lord keynes. he says, we have tried spending money. we are spending more than we have ever spent before and it

disdoes not work. after eight years of the administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot. this is f.d.r.'s guy that was one of the original stimulus people. when i hear people say stimulus, this is the result of stimulus, it's unemployment. turns the recession into a great depression. what did we try in april or may of this last spring? we tried the same dumb idea. and guess what? we are getting the same lousy results. no big surprise. so there are two ways to approach unemployment when you have a problem in the economy and the idea of spending a whole lot of money that you don't have, like $787 billion, it never worked for him and all of these nice predictions that we saw shows that it just hasn't worked the way the

administration said that's where we're going to be. here's where we are. you see the trend of that line? that's not a hopeful trend. i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank my friend from missouri pointing that out. when you go back to those comments, the treasury secretary of f.d.r., the comments he made in 1939, there is an old saying. history repeats itself. and the unfortunate part of that is we are standing at a critical point in our nation's history. we are at one of those crossroads and are we going to be here and try to perpetrate the great legacy of america and that is that every generation has inherited a better generation than the one that was passed down to them by the previous generation. it's at risk because of the spending and the borrowing that's being perpetrated by the liberals that are running

congress right now. when you show that comment from f.d.r., it's very telling, because when this administration came in, president obama says he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. first of all, if you go back and look at the great depression and the signs there, they were much worse than the signs he inherited. the signs he inherited weren't as bad as what jimmy carter created that led us to ronald reagan. jimmy carter, double-digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation. they created a new term for it called stagflation. it was a single-digit number. we had low inflation and low interest rates. because of president obama's policies, these policies like cap and trade, like the spending and the stimulus bill and government health takeover, they

have led to double-digit unemployment, but what we are starting to see are signs of creeping up interest rates and inflation because of the policies of president obama. when he says this is the worst economy since the great depression, what he was trying to do is set up an event because he knew thinks policies probably would create double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation some so he tried to set the stage. just created an economy that virtually is leading us back to the 1930's, when we did have a the great depression and it's because of his policies that are spending, taxing and borrowing our country into object liveion and i yield back. mr. akin: history does not have to repeat itself. it repeats itself if people make the same dumb mistakes over and over again. and what we're doing here is we are doing the same things over

and over again that haven't worked in the past, but doesn't really have to be that way. i thank congressman scalise for his perspectives. i'm joined by my good friend, g.t. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend for taking the important leadership on this debate. of all the things that are going on across this nation, no shortage of issues, the issue that cuts directly to the economic well-being of our citizens are jobs. and we know that we are in dire straits with jobs in this country, first time in decades. the unemployment rate has gone over double digits at 10.2%. looking back, i see my good friend has a chart there that talks about the stimulus and talks about the percentage of

unemployed. and i remember vividly sitting in this chamber where we're talking about -- and it was a mandate that we had to do something because unemployment was at 8% and if we did nothing, perhaps it would go to 8.5%. and what was done and what the democratic party did was just spend and i believe misspend. it was not the right thing to do and it made matters worse. it will drive up unemployment. people will lose confidence. those entrepreneurs, those people who are small business people, those folks who were willing to take that risk and work long days and sometimes without taking a salary themselves wouldn't have the confidence to do that. unfortunately, i like being right, but i have to say i wasn't correct that when unemployment went to 10.2%. mr. akin: reclaiming my time,

gentleman, you were here on the floor with me when we were talking about this very thing. it isn't that we are great wizards in economics but we have learned something from history. the method and approach of quote, stimulating the economy or effectively tremendous levels of government spending and money that they don't have does not help an economy that is ailing and is not going to help unemployment. we were here at this 8% unemployment. and we were told hey, if you don't get the stimulus bill through, why, it's going to go above 8%. we passed the stimulus bill and here we are at 10.2%. that's not a could insid dens. the obama administration would like to blame president bush. he hasn't learned -- he could learn from a democrat. go back to j.f.k. and j.f.k. was

face wd this problem, had a problem with unemployment. what did he do? he actually lowered taxes. he did a tax reduction, and the effect of that tax reduction was to allow the small businessman to have more money invest in their business. guess what happens? when they have the liquidity and more money to increst in their business, they add a wing on the building, a new machine, a new process, a new invention, new idea and freedom works. and what happens is you create jobs and the economy takes off. . here are some numbers that my good friend, congressman thompson from pennsylvania, you weren't here at the time, but when i came in 2001, beginning of 2001, people don't realize just because the federal government doesn't like to balance their budget, they don't realize how much these

recessions and a bad economy hurts the federal government in terms of taxation. in terms of revenue. and what was going on was people were, you know, the liberals were crying and moaning about how much money we spent on tax reduction and, oh, we're giving the rich guys a deal, and you're reducing taxes and that's going to cost the federal government all its revenue because theycal later -- calculated, if you lower taxes, then you're going to collect less resk knew. that was the logic. it seems intuitive when you look at it superphysically. but what you found was and this is an interesting number, as we reduced taxes, the businessmen, owners of small businesses, then created more jobs because they had money to spend, they created more jobs and the economy turns around and what happens is we take in more revenue than we had before. but let's just say that even in the most pessimistic sense what surprised me was this, if you added the cost of the supposedly bush tax cuts and you added the

cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan together, that total dollar value was less than what we had lost by the recession and what the recession had cost the federal government in revenue. and you see this, states around the union, especially those with balanced budget amendments, when the recession comes, boy the states are hurting. they have to really scramble because their revenues dropped clalmtically when we enter a recession but that's also true of the federal government. our revenues dropped tremendously. so this formula of excessive government spending is the exact wrong thing to do and what it does is it turns the recession into a depression. and that's why these charts are going the way they are and this should be a warning sign that what we should not be doing is a whole lot more taxing on small business and yet it seems that

every time you turn around here comes another tax and we got to hit somebody so why not tax small business? let's take a look at one other thing and this would be something i'd like to get your impression on because pennsylvania is a good industrial state, you got a lot of jobs, a lot of good, hardworking people there. and it's kind of a theoretical question. but does the government really create jobs? you know, on the surface it seems like if the government takes the money and hires somebody to build a building or something, it seems like they created a job because somebody's got to build the building and they took some money and paid somebody and somebody did something. so account government really create jobs? but what we find is, eh, you've got to be careful. i just wanted you to talk a little bit about that, if you'd like to, gentleman. mr. thompson: i would and i appreciate that opportunity. the government cannot create jobs. even the jobs -- unemployment is now 10.2%. now i would admit that i'm sure

within that, even despite that bad unemployment, there are jobs that are temporarily subsidized but the federal government. even some of the projects that i originally thought would be good stimulus, infrastructure projects, well those are not sustainable jobs, those jobs are only there as long as the government is subsidizing them. as soon as that subsidy goes away, a as soon as the stimulus money is spent, those folks are laid off. a job, as i define it, is a good family-sustaining job that is there, that grows, that not only grows but is working in a business, mostly small businesses is my experience, they're creating other new jobs and so it really has been fiscal irresponsibility in terms of spending going on. i think you and i are both supporters of a better plan. this is going back to when we were debating this stimulus

originally and the republican alternative we had recognized that the true economic engine of this country are small businesses. mr. akin: right. mr. thompson: and we had proposals that we put on the table to ask for a vote that would provide tax deductions -- deductions up to 20% for small businesses. benefits that went to businesses , 500 employees or less, which effectively employ a large majority of americans throughout this nation. and the economic engines that create prosperity, create new jobs, and not jobs that will go away when government subsidies stop. these are jobs that are sustainable because they're based on real economics, they're based on -- they're employeing people that are -- employing people that are hard working americans and -- hardworking americans and many of these are small businesses that are owned by individuals who are willing to make the sacrifices, take the risk and go after that. as i travel around my district right now i've talked with a number of people that i consider

my heroes in terms of small business men and women, people that have started with nothing. but they're willing to work hard, to take that risk and they had that american dream. mr. akin: put everything on the table. mr. thompson: on the line, absolutely. and year after year these folks have been once that have gone out and -- ones that have gone out and created new jobs, every year, but taking what they've invested, the return on their investment, and putting it back into their small business. they reinvest there. and you know what? i can't believe how many of them i'm talking with right now are sitting on the sideline because they're afraid of what's been going on in this country since january. they're afraid of the deficit spending they've seen. they're afraid of the regulations we've seen. these are small businessmen that most of them pay their taxes as a limited liability corporation or an s corms so think pay through personal information tax. these are folks that my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have been piling on in

terms of new taxes, more taxes, claiming these are the rich and they can afford to pay more taxes. actually what these are the job creators and -- are are the job creators and it forces them to sit on the sidelines. mr. akin: what you're talking about is the old prove herb of killing the goose that lays the -- proverb of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. the government hires somebody to build a highway. that's a good job. somebody's building a highway. well, it's true that for some period of time and you put deficits on -- put the emphasis on temporary, that job is there as long as we are taxing somebody to get the money in order to hire that guy. and the way that economics works is that for every job by taking taxpayers' money and creating a job with the government what we do is we kill 2.2 jobs in the private sector. so effectively what you're doing is a very inefficient means of bleeding the part of the sector that creates the real jobs and

creating temporarily a government job. now we have -- my son is in afghanistan. we have places where the federal government hires people, they're legitimate jobs that need to be done, but all of those things are balanced on the back of the private sector. and if you get too greedy and you start to squeeze the private sector enough, not only do you make it sick, you can kill it. and that's what was done during the great depression. they started taxing those small businesses so much and put so many regulations on them that they killed them and they went out of business. and that's what's starting to happen and that's what frightens me terribly about the approach that week of got here. as i started this evening i talked about what are the things that destroy jobs? and you just intuitively, you're talking about the people of pennsylvania and about the business people, the courageous, quiet souls that go out and take the risks and not knowing whether they're going to be

sleeping under a park bench if their business goes out, they pull the their whole life in it, they invested in a new piece of equipment and in the process they create wealth and jobs and stuff. those people. well, what do we do if you really want to hurt them? well, what we do is everything we've been doing for the last year. first of all, it's this out of control federal spending on all kinds of wasteful things. for instance, that stimulus bill had billions of dollars for community organizers like acorn. we had money in that bill to produce that website that created congressional districts that don't even exist, claiming that jobs were created. that's a waste of money. the next thing is as you properly pointed out is -- thing as you properly pointed out is you start taxing people. you tax them on energy. and so now this guy that's got a business, perhaps he uses a fair. a energy, uh-oh, i'm going to have taxes on energy now. and that issue you properly

pointed out, you start creating this sense of fear and uncertainty. and so the guy -- now you have red tape and more taxes and more taxes. the guy thinks, how in the world ambition i going to make a living with that? and that's what's being done not just in missouri and pennsylvania, it's being done to our economy because we're doing the wrong thing. and it's not so complicated because other presidents have shown the right way to go. and that is to let those small businessmen -- let's just take a look at what we're doing, just hammering them fiscally. you started to list them off. first of all there's the death tax and there's dividends and capital gains. those are taxes that were cut by bush back in 2001 and 2003 in order to get those small businessmen up and going. so those have been cut temporarily and now that's going to expire and what have the democrats told us? i yield. mr. thompson: well, i mean, i think this week tomorrow we're going to be voting on the estate

tax here and -- mr. akin: the death tax. mr. thompson: the death tax. mr. akin: death is a taxable event. mr. thompson: it's not only a taxable event, it's double taxation because all the money the government will be taxing has already been taxed at one time or another. mr. akin: so we get them coming and get them going. if they're dead they don't complain as much. mr. thompson: i think that's an excellent point. but it still doesn't make it right and it's absolutely wrong. i think the rate we're looking at is 45%. mr. akin: so let's just run this logic. how logical is this, if you want a decent economy? a guy's a farmer, let's say he's got 200 acres of ground, maybe it's 2,000 acres of ground and some tractors, and he dies. his son wanted to run the farm. so now when he dies what's the son have to do? mr. thompson: he's got to sell part of the farm because there's certainly no -- there's no large portion in farming sitting back

in liquid assets to pay the death tax. mr. akin: so he has to pay 45% of the value of the farm. so if he's got 2,000 acres and a couple of tractors or whatever it is, he's going to have to sell almost half of that and then it may get to the point where the farm is no longer selling half of it, makes it so it doesn't really work. so what happens then? mr. thompson: i can't imagine -- and today farm something such a challenge. we just had a hearing earlier today with one of the agriculture subcommittees on the impact of climate change on farmers and i was relating the plight of the average dairy farmer in my district and dairy farm something a big industry, it's certainly an important industry to our nation. and in my district -- and farms range sizes but the average size of a farm in my district is about 80 head of cao, -- cow, 80 to 85, they have enough acreage to grow their own corn, they grow their own feed and beyond

that that's the operation they run. and today on a dairy farm and this is a nationwide statistic, because of the problems we have with the pricing of milk, the fact that the federal government got involved in in that decades ago, that the average farmer loses $100 per cow per month. so obviously unfortunately when a dairy farmer passes away there's no reserve sitting there to pay off the death tax. and you start selling off -- what are you going to sell from a dairy farm to pay that tax? are you going to sell the cows? you're not going to be a dairy farmer. are you going to sell off the acreage? you're not going to be a dairy farmer. you going to sell the barn? can't do that. you need the tractor. and i think that just represents the plight of our farmers with that type of tax. .

mr. akin: i have a nephew working on a dairy farm in upper new york state. and if you have to sell half of that, even if you could, sell half the could yous, half the farm, -- half the cows, half the farm, it no longer works. you have to cut the business in half and give half to the federal government. how are we going to have jobs and a strong economy? first off, we have the death tax, dividends, capital gains, all of those are expiring and going being back, which are going to have an opposite effect on the economy than it did a couple of years ago. then on top of that, we spent $780 billion in that silly stimulus bill and $780 for the bailout and another big tax increase in the history of the country for global warming, an energy tax, along with tons of

red tape that go along with it and telling everybody in the country they have to have an electrical outlet in their garage for their golf cart. there is a lot of regulations and taxes all with the effect it's going to kill those jobs. there is a reason why that red line is going up, isn't there? mr. thompson: we cannot forget the taxes from the health care bill. mr. akin: those are additional taxes on top of the small businessman, over $700 billion. mr. thompson: much of that balanced on the backs of small businesses. mr. akin: you are saying, we're going to tell you what kind of health insurance you need and you are going to pay for that and if you don't, we will fine you and tax you. and on top of that, we're going to put 5% tax on top of any

profits you make in your business. you won't be able to invest, because we're going to get that, too. on top of all of this, the red tape, the uncertainty, the lousy economy, tax after tax after tax, now we're going to hit them and tell them, by the way, any employee you've got, you have to pay for their health care and if not, we'll tax you heavily. i yield. mr. thompson: there was a headline in the "wall street journal" just yesterday that said, job cuts loom as stimulus fades. i think that speaks to the original point that we made that the stimulus is unsuccessful. it has failed. and i know the president is having a jobs summit tomorrow. i'm hoping, actually praying, when he does that that better minds prevail and he hears from

the people attending that summit the types of things we have been talking about. and we have been talking about since jans. we have been talking about things such as cutting taxes for small businesses, of reducing the burdens that we put on those job creators, those are the types of thing we should be doing. and i know that my friends, the democratic colleagues are going to be looking at a stimulus ii here and my big fear is it will be another special interest, big spending bill that really isn't about creating jobs but in the name of jobs. mr. akin: just reclaiming my time. i appreciate your optimism. the president has declared that he is going to have a meeting to get together and talk about the economy and everything. but i happen to know something about the invitation list. i don't know who was invited. i know who was not invited. u.s. chamber of commerce. they represent businesses and

small business. they weren't invited. national federation of independent businesses. i assume you have them in pennsylvania. we have them in missouri. these are coalitions of lots and lots of small businesses. do you think they were invited? no. who was invite snd all the people who got money under the first stimulus bill. the whole idea of the stimulus bill is wrong economics. you aren't going to get the economy going by getting -- spending more money. holy smokes, our economy would be red hot and on fire. we have been spending like there is no tomorrow and the economy is not doing so well. look at that unemployment line. spending money is not the solution. but the idea of more stimulus. it's just nuts. einstein said if you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, it's insanity. we're getting close.

i yield. mr. thompson: and there's a two-part penalty to this, one is we are spending all this money, but this isn't even money that we have. this is deficit spending. this is spending that we have to reach out and to creditors and to take out loans. and who is our number one creditor? who is the number one entity that is lending us money? it's china. and so it's not just spending, it's deficit spending. the last time i remember a situation like this specifically was back at the tail end of the president carter years. and my wife and i were young. we had just married and looking to purchase that first home and we weren't making a whole lot of money, but as we looked around, real estate wasn't selling particularly very expensive and the reason for that is because

of the inflation and stag flation. we applied for a first-time homeowners from the state. our interest rate was 14%. but that was a great interest rate because at that point, the banks commercially were lending at 19% and 20% but it was because of where we were in terms of high inflation and high unemployment. today, -- mr. akin: the inflation is created by the federal government, basically dumping more and more money into the money supply. you know, i was just looking at a chart from 1960 up through this year and looks like a little sawtooth. it's called m-1 or the money supply and last year we had a ten-times increase in the

government's release of that liquidity. so far, it hasn't turned into inflation yet, but every time people have done that in the past, it comes around to bite you as inflation. here's a chart of it. here's the wall street bailout part two. and stimulus bill. schip and the appropriations bill. and then there are these other two, the cap and tax and the health care. to estimate that at $1 trillion is being generous. i think it's helpful to compare a couple of things that are similar. as you recall, the democrats were critical that bush spent too much money. in fact, i was here some of those years and i voted against some of the things that the administration wanted because i thought it was too expensive. let's take president bush's biggest spending year. his biggest deficit was in 2008. that's when the democrats ran

the house here. and that was about br $450 billion or so. and that was 2008. in 2009 -- if you took it at the $450 billion as a percent of our gross domestic product that was about 3.3%. this year, the spending is 1.4 trillion. that's three times more spending in the first year than president bush in his worst year out of eight years. three times more. and it puts the level of debt that we have created not at 3.3% of g.d.p. but at 9.9%. we have more than tripled that ratio, the highest since world war ii, because of this, because we can't seem to say no to spending.

and that's not the formula to help with the jobs problem. i yield. mr. thompson: it's almost like our dem chiropractic colleagues look at it as a candy store and there is so much -- there is no end to it. there is an endless supply. and i suspect that at some point where i know that we are probably coming up on the debt ceiling in terms of the amount of debt and allowed by law by statute to accumulate as a country. and i don't know the exact total but i believe it's around $14 trillion. and the fact that we are fastly approaching that just after this past year. and i'm the first guy -- i came here in january. i think both parties were fiscally irresponsible in years past. i'm the first to admit that. and i was motivated to come here because if we were running a household, we would not spend money -- we would not be

fiscally irresponsible but live within our means. and the federal government hasn't done that under the leadership of either party. and this year, with my democratic colleagues in control. and so the fact is this is not a candy store. and in terms of raising that debt ceiling, i think that's just providing a license for more and more deficit spending going forward into the future and woy encourage all of my colleagues, that is not something -- we need to be bringing that debt down. that's running this house the way we run our houses at home and that is something we need to restore. we have not had that for a very long time in this country. and that is something we need to be committed to. mr. akin: you are absolutely right. and the reason we are getting off the wrong track is just because this whole liberal concept of economics, they are trying to make two plus two equal five and repeal the law of

economics. if you and i in our household and thought we are getting tight on money and starting to have economic hard times in our family, so let's run up a huge credit card bill, that will make it better, people would lock us up and put us up in little white suits and think we are crazy. mr. thompson: that does happen in our nation and the fact is that people experience bankruptcy and ruin their lives by doing that. mr. akin: in this case, when the federal government does it, we bankrupt the entire nation and one of the effects of the bankruptcy is unemployment. but it is impofferishing everybody. you can't repeal the basic laws of supply and demand and can't give away housing that people can't afford to pay for it without consequences. that's what got us into this trouble not so many years ago.

here's what people aren't aware of and we need to understand, how did we get into this problem? this idea that we are able to repeal the laws of economics. this is the september 11, but not 2001, but 2003. it's an article in the "new york times," not exactly a liberal source of information. and here, this is the author of the article that says, the bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. let's get this straight. this is the "new york times." this is bad president bush as saying, we need to have a significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry. and the strongest thing. under the plan, disclosed at a congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created

within the treasury department to assume supervision of fannie mae and freddie mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest in the mortgage lending industry. this is 2003, bush sees irregularities in fredee and fanee and how they are managing the business. why would there be irregularities? because they were allowed to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loans. what's the democrat response to what president bush wanted to do? what happened was, he passed the bill. we voted on this bill and went to the senate and it was killed by the democrats in the senate. what was the democrat response in the house to bush saying we have to get on this problem or we're going to have an economic crisis on our hands? well, with respect to fanee and

fredee, i did not want the same kind of focus -- the speaker pro tempore: your time has expired. mr. akin: thank you, gentlemen, for joining me. the time has flown and i look forward to our next evening. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ryan. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. we're happy again to kick off another edition of the 30-something working group in which we will try to bring some facts and some analysis to the -- for the house of representatives. i can't help but to get up after having to sit through what our friended on the other side were talking about a little bit -- friends on the other side were talking about a little bit and

it's interesting, mr. speaker, as we see some of our republican friends have a very short memory as to what transpired here. i've been fortunate enough to be here over the last seven years and was able to watch president bush with a republican-controlled had house, a republican-controlled senate, a republican supreme court, many state legislatures and state governors' mansions were controlled by the republicans. in ohio i know that was the fact. run up huge budget deficit, start wars, cut taxes for the top 1%, take their eye off of wall street, ignore health care, continue to support and subsidize the oil economy, push globalization, not enforce our trade laws, all with the rubber stamp from the republican congress and then all of a sudden in 2008, 2009 the bottom

falls out. wall street collapses, we see the stock market collapse, credit locks up, on and on and on and our friends on the other side act like that just happened by happenen stance and now in order to try to address those issues we have to make some very difficult decisions as a country and come together as a country and we get people ignoring the previous eight years when anybody who is billion realistic can see how we got here and now all we want to do now is have a conversation about how we move forward and how we use this and see this as an opportunity to address some of the major

structural changes that we have in the united states of america. and there are two major ones in our economy that have been like an albatross around the necks of small business people all over our country and big businesses all over our country. that's health care and it's energy. and so this congress has stepped up to bat to address two of those major problems without a lick of help from the republicans, not a lick of help and at the end of the day they're going to be on the wrong side of history like they were for social security and medicare and civil rights and a lot of the other major issues that really gave us things to be proud of in this country. and so as we move forward with the house bill on health care and now the senate is opening up debate and having debate on a

health care bill we're trying to address the concerns of the american people and i want everyone, mr. speaker, to understand the issues that we have taken up here as a democratic congress and this is all with the understanding that we know that the unemployment rate is too high, there are too many people out of work, there's a lot more work to be done. but if you look at the previous eight years prior to president obama you will see an administration that completely catered to wall street and big business in the united states of america. whether it was a trade agreement, whether it was immigration laws, whether it was health care, whether it was energy, you could bet your bottom dollar that president bush was on the side of big insurance, big pharmaceuticals,

big oil, big agriculture, right down the line. and when we came in as democrats we began to change that. and all you have to do and they say you can judge someone by their enemies, the democratic party took on the big oil interests, the democratic party is taking on the insurance industry, the democratic party is the one party getting the banks out of the student loan business and all these sweetheart deals that were set over the last eight years are on their way out the door. and president obama got stuck with a heck of a mess. there's no question. a heck of a mess. but in america we have to live in reality. i know some people on the other

side may not necessarily agree with that or like that. which is fine. but we are the majority party and we have to deal with reality , without illusions and deal with the facts that are at hand and here are the facts, that if we do absolutely nothing with health care that the average family of four next year will have an $1,800 increase. $18 u.n. and in the following year it will be another $1,800 and in the following year it will be another $1,800. that's reality. everyone's agreeing on that. if we do nothing human beings, american citizens in this country, will continue to get denied coverage by insurance companies because they have a pre-existing condition. that pre-existing could be you

were involved in a domestic violence situation. that pre-existing condition could be infertility or as we even heard, spousal infertility. you're denied. diabetes, cancer, that's if we do nothing. if we do nothing just in my congressional district, in northeast ohio, we will have 1,700 families go bankrupt next year because of health care costs. if we do nothing. and on and on right down the line, an inhumane, costly, expensive, infesht -- inefficient health care system. and so we chose to take on the big fight. we chose to make a human decision to say this problem needs fixing, it needs

addressing and we know it's politically risky but we're going to do it because there are too many people in the country, mr. speaker, who need to us act. and not sit on the sidelines where it's safe. boy, it would have been nice, we could have just said, you know what? we're going to play it safe, we're not going to do anything that's going to upset anybody or get fox news all riled up or rush limbaugh or clear channel or the right wing talk radios, we're just going to play it safe but at the end of the day history would not be very good to us. because they would have said, what did they do in washington, d.c., when this decision, these hard decisions, needed to be made 10 years ago? and our kids and our grandkids would say, jeez, dad, jeez, mom, you were in congress in a very difficult time, we needed some big decisions to be made, what did you do when you were there? and you can look proudly at your

kids and say to them, i did nothing, i played it safe. i sat on my hands. because i wanted to get re-elected or i was afraid that rush limbaugh would make fun of me. the reforms that are coming out of this house of representatives, as i said when i'm back home in youngstown, ohio, in niles, ohio, in warren, ohio, in canton, in akron, these reforms are for our people, our people who have struggled and fought and got zero wage increases over the last 30 years , who got a haggle -- who got to haggle with the insurance company, gelt denied, getting floored -- get denied, get ignored while they're on their death bed, lose their job, lose their pension. that is wrong. and we are going to do something

about it. so let's just take what happens when health care reform passes. there will be some time until the exchange gets set up and whether or not there's a public option and what it looks like and all that, that may take a couple of years. but immediately what happens is that no longer in america will you get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. never again. if you have a child, a son or daughter, who is under the age of 27 years old they can stay on your health care insurance. so all of those young people in their early and mid 20's who can't get health insurance or can't afford health insurance can stay on their parents' health insurance. that's implemented immediately.

if you have a health care catastrophe in your family and being a member of congress we get these cause and we're out in the public and we -- calls and we're out in the public and we meet these people in the fairs and festivals and bingo halls, at the visk events, -- civic events, there will be a cap on how much you can pay out of pocket per year on health care costs. so that we can eliminate people in the united states of america going bankrupt because they have a health care catastrophe. and all of our friends on the other side of the aisle who talk about family values and everything else voted against that, voted against it. so when you look at the health care reform bill, it is a values issue, it is a family values issue that we need to address

and our budgets and our investments speak to that. speak to our values and what we care about and what we stand for and when you look at aarp's endorsed it, american medical association's endorsed it, the catholic bishop had nothing but good things to say about it, and even the business round table, the top c.e.o.'s in the country said that the health care reform bill in 2019 will save them $3,000 an employee, $3,000. now you can argue with me, you can argue and call people liberal and socialist and pull out all the names that our friends on the other side have been using for the last 60 years or 70 years in their rebutals to policy initiatives by the democratic party but you can't argue with the business round

table saying that the going to save them $3,000 per employee. and aren't we tired of getting calls from small business people telling us about all of the increases, all of the rate increases, and i just call a call the other day from a health care provider talking about this issue and another from a health care business person who said he just got in the mail a 50% increase for his business. that's one person out of a couple hundred gets sick, push the number up, next thing you know he goes from paying $600,000 a year to next year he's going to have to pay $1 million a year and he said,

timmy, i may have to shut the doors. i may have to shut the doors. that's what we're trying to prevent. how could we have any sustained long-term economic growth if we don't take care of the health care issue in this country? if we keep strangling our small business people? and i understand that there may be some small business people that maybe disagree with any extension of the role of government in any area but there's nothing left to control the massive insurance industry in the united states of america unless we do what the people have always done when we needed to address a big problem in this country and that's join together through our elected officials who we send to washington to help us. we need to ask them to get together and solve this problem and that's what's happening and

we see the insurance industry and the extreme right wing of the republican party, the neoconservatives, continue, continue, mr. speaker, to be offended. nobody here wants to hurt anybody, nobody here wants to destroy america. we're here to help. . the people on the other side of the aisle, they won't work with us. letting people on your insurance until you are 27. going bankrupt. limiting how much out-of-pocket you can spend. making sure they can't knock you off the rolls once you have

insurance coverage. these are some basic things we should all be able to agree upon. and mr. speaker, we are doing it . and in the same issue happens with energy. we spend $750 billion a year out of our country through the gas stations that go to oil-producing countries. $750 billion wealth transfer right out of our country. and a couple of years ago, mr. speaker, we spent about $115 billion out of the defense department escorting exxon mobil and big oil ships in and out of

the persian gulf. if you do the path, the persian gulf oil that ends up in your gas tank should really be $1.50 more because of the subsidies you have paid, that the american taxpayer has paid to provide the security for these ships going in and out of the persian gulf. now that doesn't sound, in addition to that, subsidies to oil companies, tax credits, tax cuts to go and continue to drill. completely subsidizing big oil and the oil economy. and what democrats have said is how do we put together an energy policy that will take some of the $750 billion and instead of letting it go offshore and out of our country, how do we direct it back into the united states?

and at the same time, reduce co-2 and at the same time resuccess tate manufacturing in the united states of america through our windmills, solar panels, using natural gas that is here in the united states. we don't have the kind of oil that some of these other countries do. and why do we prop up these dictators and these royal families who have no concern for our well-being? when we can use the need for energy and make it work for us and put together a system and a national policy that is pro-american. there is not a bigger, more patriotic piece of legislation in the united states of america, house of representatives right now than the energy bill that passed this house.

what kind of national security plan is it for us to continue to send money that goes to these kingdoms that fund terrorist organizations that don't like us? where we can be putting steel workers to work, making 400 tons of steel that go into windmills or bring back manufacturing in the united states of america by making sure that our people manufacture the 8,000 component parts that go into a windmill. to me, that makes a good deal of sense. and both of these issues in the long-term are jobs programs. you want -- does anyone have a better idea, mr. speaker, on how

to stimulate manufacturing in the united states? i can't think of one. we have tried to cut taxes on the top 1% and hope something trickles down and that means they'll invest back in america and we'll create jobs in the united states. that didn't work. that did not work. the republicans, the house, the senate, the white house. they implemented the whole george bush economic policy and it didn't work. and here we are today. and i know our friends like to be critical of the stimulus bill, but in january, we lost 750,000 jobs. now we're still losing a couple hundred thousand jobs a month. and we do need to put together a jobs program. we do need to invest in the transportation. and put thousands and thousands

of people to work. we need to do that. we need to make those investments. there's no question about it. and we need to get back to a moderate balanced, prudent, wise economic policy and tax policy here in the united states. the old keynesian theory that asks some of the wealthiest in our country to pay a little more in the good times, cut taxes in the bad times and increase social spending so we can stimulate the economy and smooth out these rough edges worked for a long time in this country. led to the construction of a great middle class, balanced investments in education, transportation, roads and bridges. it's time for us to get back to that.

and in the 17th congressional district, we are putting together what is a very smart, balanced economic policy locally where we are making the proper investments, laying the proper groundwork and what we're trying to do locally is to line up with where the national policy and the national trends are going. you had to be sleeping if you can't tell that the world is moving towards green technology, green energy. the hedge fund, the big money people are all moving in that direction. the scientists, the engineers are all moving in that direction. all the research, moving in that direction. and so there's health care reform.

and what that will do for our local community. and there's energy. and so we've been fairly fortunate amidst all of the economic problems and the high unemployment that we are seeing back home, seeds that are beginning to sprout and that once credit loosens up, we will see long-term economic growth. but we need our national policies, mr. speaker, to push, to shape us as a country and our economy in the right direction. and the big decisions that are being made here and through the obama administration are sound. and amidst all of the whirlwind here, i think we are making some

very strategic, smart, long-term decisions. and it's going to pay off in the long run. and we see this -- you know, we see it all the time where you can start a game or start rebuilding your program, whether it's college football or basketball or the nba or whatever the case may be where you see a great coach start to implement the plan and you don't necessarily start winning all the games right away. you saw it with bill walsh in san francisco and see it with the pates, the steelers. doesn't -- patriots, the steelers. for the browns, mr. speaker, it has been a rough road, but we're going to get past it. it has been a difficult time to

be a cleveland browns' fan. but the bottom line here is that we are in a rebuilding process. we are laying the groundwork, the fundamental decisions necessary to allow for long-term economic growth. and when you look at health care and 30 million more people that are going to have health insurance, we're going to need docs, nurses. there's going to be a total reinvigoration of health care, information technology. just as an example, i was at the national college yesterday -- not yesterday, a few days ago, in youngstown, ohio. they have programs primarily in health, health information technology and some business entrepreneur classes. college opened up with 50

people. now has 850 kids from youngstown and struthers going to the school to learn health information technology. here we have people, young and middle-aged looking at where the economy is going and what they need to be doing and so the huge investment in health information technology, the investment we will be making in health care by making sure everybody's covered and coordinating all of these different systems, there's going to be an opportunity for many of these young kids who are doing what we asked them to do, go to school, get educated, do the right thing. and you will be rewarded. and so in 10 years, mr. speaker, in 2019, 2020, we will look back on these decisions that have

been made in this congress and we will see that we have eliminated a lot of human suffering because of what we have done with the health care system. we will see that wetch reined in costs for the insurance companies and that has allowed small businesses to re-invest back into their own companies, to give pay increases to their workers as opposed to covering all of the health care increases. we will see people who believe that a compassionate government can exist to advocate on their behalf. and a lot of people say, i'm afraid of the government. it's not the government you need to be afraid of. it is the big insurance company you need to be afraid of. it is the big oil companies you need to be afraid of. and we're taking them on. and we're taking them on. and 10 years from now, it is

going to be looked back upon as one of the turning points in our country's history. like medicare, like civil rights, like a lot of the great programs that have been established to help our people, our people, average americans are getting represented in this government. and we will look back on our energy policies and we will see that we have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. we have given people hope. we have re-established america as an innovative leader in the world. and it will help with health care reform and lift up the middle class, because we need to start making things again in the united states. we need to start making things again. and with windmills and wind tushins, these aren't things we have to ship? from china.

and it will put middle-class people back to work. so those two major issues are going to unleash the creativity needed, the american spirit needed, the american independence needed. and i'm proud of what's happening here. i'm proud of what's happening in the united states. and i know it's difficult, i know it's tough, i know it's noisey, but these things are happening for us in the united states. when it's all said done and a parent goes to get health insurance or some young person goes to get health insurance and they call the insurance company and they have cancer or diabetes and the insurance company can not deny them. the parents will say, there was a day five years ago where you would have got denied coverage. 20, 30 years ago, our kids will say, you got to be kidding me? that rea h