the answer unfortunately is no. h.r. 4154 is dead on arrival in the senate. even if it squeaks through the house with whatever arm twisting must be done, it will be dead on arrival in the senate. earlier this year the senate voted on a bipartisan basis for a far more generous estate tax relief package. the lincoln-kyl amendment which mirrors the berkley-brady amendment that was not offered, allowed to be offered today, provides a considerably higher exemption and a more reasonable 35% rate. it's very unlikely that the senate is going to take a break from health care and other issues to pass a bill that they have serious concerns about. . especially since they haveres. arer vations about pay-go.

also, key senators, even key democratic senator, believe this bill is insufficient. according to a december 22 article, it's quoted that the house plan to make permanent the 2009 estate tax rate exemption levels falls far short of what's needed in the long run and, quote, key senators in that chamber. i think our goal ought to be helping the people we say we're trying to help, family farmers and small businesses, and we ought to be pushing a bill forward that can be accepted by the senate, can make it to the president's desk and provide that certainty that helps these peoples. with that -- these people. with that i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished minority leader, mr. hoyer.

-- distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank mr. pomeroy for yielding and i want to thank him for his efforts in pursuing this bill and introducing this bill and affecting the policy that currently exists in this country of a generous but fair provision for exemptions on estates. that exemption has been, i'm sure, debated today, provides for $3.5 million for each spouse or $7 million a family for an exemption under the estate tax. however what republican policy did was create a situation where there is no certainty, no ability to plan, and no confidence of what the tax policy will be in the coming years. i therefore rise to support

this bill which permanently extends estate tax relief to american families and which strikes a fair balance to what -- between what we owe to families, farmers, and small businesses and what we owe to our country's fiscal future. this bill simply extends law at current exemptions, but it does not abolish the estate tax altogether, which i think would be a mistake. teddy roosevelt thought it would be a mistake he thought it would be a mistake because he didn't want to see the constant acreation in a few very wealthy families of the wealth of this country. abolishing the estate tax will add billions and billions to our deficit, as will happen next year if we do not pass this bill. while a small number of wealthy families would benefit, the growth of our economy as a whole would suffer. so would vital programs on which millions of americans

rely. the estate tax also sets a limit on the concentration of inherited wealth from generation to generation. that's what teddy roosevelt, republican president, in the early part of last century, thought was appropriate in american policy which at a time when this country's middle class is already struggling would make the contrast even starker. that's why advocates of a dialic -- dynamic economy have supported a -- an estate tax for generations. when first propose estate tax, teddy roosevelt said, a man owes something to the couldn't rip but because he owes something to the government. bill gates recently argued that the estate tax, and this is a quote, puts a break on the

substantial wealth and power and encourages billions of dollars in charitable giving each year. the estate tax is not only fair, bill gates said, but it is an essential component of our nation's economic die namism. that's bill gates, who will i think be perceived by the american public as having probably the possibility of one of the largest estates. finally it's important that this bill is permanent, not a temporary fix. that guarantees families, farmers, and small businesses the certainty they need to plan ahead rationally. president bush's estate tax policy, by contrast, gave the country anything but certainty. it phased out the estate tax, repealed it entirely for 2010 and brought back at 2001 levels for 2011.

in other words, $3.5 million today, zero tomorrow, and $1 million in 2011. no accountant or estate planner is going to look you in the eye and say, based on that policy, i can give you rational advice. that was truly an irresponsible tax and fiscal policy brought to us, very frankly, by the minority party when it was in power. it made it impossible for families to plan with confidence for the future and hid the policy's true cost to our national budget. this bill can change that. it is in keeping with president obama's pledge of a new honesty in budgeting. i also want to point out that passing this bill is also an important step toward fiscal responsibility because attached to it is the house's support for statutory pay-go. let me say something about

statutory pay-go. my friends on the republican side of the aisle are not for it. they're not for it because they want to make deep revenue cuts and didn't want to pay for them, they wanted my children to pay for them and my grandchildren to pay for them and frankly, that's who's going to pay for them. those of us at my age are not going to pay for them because we encourage real debt by not faying for what we buy and created extraordinary deficit over the last eight years of the bush administration. the principle of paying what for what we buy was central to turning record deficits of 1993, of 1992, of 1991, of 190, and all the years of the 1980's, turning record deficits into record surpluses. it was statutory pay-go that allowed us to do that along with the extraordinary growth

in the economy by an economic program put in place in 1993, for which none of my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle voted. it can be an important step again today. i wish that this extension of estate tax relief were also paid for. it is not, of course. why is it not paid for? because we can't pay for it at a time when we are at great economic risk. we can't suppress the economy, we need to stimulate the economy. but if we put in place pay-go, we will give additional confidence to those who are prepared to invest their capital that we will continue to have sound fiscal policies. it's unlikely that we will have the votes to pay for this extension of policies which

bipartisan support. i choose to support the strongest persian of pay-go possible. that's the pay-go provision in this bill. so on the one hand we bring in this bill estate planning rationality, substance, and confidence. on the other hand we adopt once again in this house the premise of statutory pay-go which got us to four years of surplus. during the clinton administration. the only four years of surplus in the lifetime of anybody in this chamber. i hope that the senate will join the house in taking this essential first step out of america's deep fiscal hole. my friend, mr. brady, thinks they will not. perhaps he is correct. if he is correct, it will be unfortunately. my friend, i know, has been a proponent for the years he's been here and some of us have been going to zero, no estate

tax. frankly, because of that position, we have not been able to reach compromise. and therefore we find ourselves in this untenable position. i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill which makes a fair estate tax permanent, makes estate planning more reliable, and makes our commitment to fiscal discipline clear. and unequivocal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: we have short memories around here. while i know it's sort of popular to blame president bush for everything from acid he re-flux to tiger woods' car accident, the truth of the matter is, we wouldn't be here today if president clinton had not vetoed the full, permanent repeal of death tax once and

for all for america. a republican congress sent him that bill saying the only peace of mind we can give to family farms and small businesses is to put this death tax to death. but because of his actions and irresponsible veto, today it is -- we see a high tax rate and low exemptions and real damage upon america's family farms and small businesses. we talk about fiscal responsibility, i just heard some more rhetoric about that. let me point out that while republicans unfortunately, responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and creating a homeland security department, i believe while well intentioned in defense of this country, also spent too much money. you can tell from these red bars how once that mistake was made, the deficit, year after year, went down. the first year, democrats had control of congress, the deficit went from $162 to $459.

the democrats, first year they had control of this house they said they tripled the deficit this year it's almost nine times higher than when republicans left congress system of when i hear a lecture of fiscal responsibility after $1.4 trillion deficit, a quarter of a trillion dollar unpaid bill two weeks ago for the doctor fix, unprecedented spending spree, bailouts and pay-go rules that have less credibility than all the fake stimulus jobs we hear about, please. no lectures. when you talk about statutory pay-go, i'll remind members how many violations of pay-go occurred in the last two dozen of the -- in the last couple of years by this congress, supposedly fiscally responsible. you know they way -- the way they got around it? sometimes they used the same

pay-go 25 different times. that's like mortgaging your house 25 times to the bank as collateral. they used some pay-go 10 different times. one time to try to look like they balanced a bill, this congress on this floor with this leadership decreed that there will be no terrorist attacks for the next five years so that this bill could look like it was paid for. so please, no lectures on fiscal responsibility from a congress and white house that is ruining this country, driving us so deep into debt, i don't know how our grandchildren will ever get out of it. i think the main point today that i will refute as well is that this is the only option. the truth of the matter is, there's a bipartisan bill that has support of some 39 or so members of this house, supported by so many of the family farms and small businesses, local nurseries and home builders and retail shops

that does have support in the house and the senate. that's the compromise that should be on the floor today. that's the way we make sure we help our family's small businesses. let me tell you, too, when washington says we're only going after the wealthy, grab your pocketbooks. we've seen this run before. the alternative minimum tax was supposed to tax 100 or so of the wealthiest americans as we just heard. today that tax can grab almost 24 million americans. we're going to see every year more and more family farms, more and more small businesses, trapped, damaged, destroyed by this death tax unless this bill is voted down and we have other options that really can help. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pomeroy: mr. speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend, mr. brady, he's been entrusted to manage time on the bill, he's done a great job of it. for many years, i've had a running debate with mr. holsof, no longer with us, he did not run for re-election last year, i think mr. brady has more than picked up the banner for him. i commend him for a good discussion. i do believe he begins with a curious point. he attacks the democrats for budget deficits while advocating a bill that would cost twice a much as the bill on the floor. repeal of the estate tax would lose roughly half a trillion dollars over the next decade.

that's well over double the bill before the house. and another thing without that bill that you is it not hear one speck of discussion on from the republicans in the debate today is this capital gains tax issue. let me just briefly recount it. right now when someone inherits property under an estate, if they go on to sell it, the capital gains is on the value of the asset at the time it was inherited. if we don't act the law that's on the books, it brings a different formula. it's called carryover basis. when you inherit property and sell it you pay capital gains on everything over the value of the initial acquisition. the price grandma paid when she

got the farm or what have you. farm bureau has called this insidious. we make that problem go away and it needs to go away. i don't think it's right responding to another point made by my friend, mr. brady, to blame mr. clinton for the estate tax. president bush had eight years of governing after mr. clinton. six of those years republicans controlled this chamber. they needed to do something, they certainly had a time to do it. but what they left us is now a mess that needs to be attended to. because to have the estate tax repealed next year, have a capital gains tax come in instead of the estate tax, a capital gains tax that will hit 71,000 taxpayers while the

6,000 get relief on the estate tax, 71,000 have new capital gains exposure and then have it all go back to the 2002 levels in the year after that, two million join the 55% rate. it makes no sense. the bill on the floor achieves almost unanimous relief on the estate tax while making the rules very clear. 99.25% get excluded from the estate tax. those estates, joint estates, over seven million would continue to have the exposure although they would obviously have the -- the rate 45% only applies to assets over the $7 million. so in a taxable estate there is zero tax on it, 45% over that.

on average it means you have an 18% rate, not nearly half as described on the other side. in closing, i'd quote from "the washington post" editorial talking about this situation in today's paper. it says, and i quote, in one of those fiscal time bombs left from the bush administration, the estate tax having gradually dwindled is set to be eliminated entirely next year and spring back to life in 2011 unless something is done, 2010 would free mama from the train. this would be unkind to mama. so i believe we need to act. the bill before us is a reasonable resolution. i yield its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. -- and i ask for its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve his time?

does the gentleman from south dakota reserve his time? >> i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself 30 seconds. while i disagree with some of the assertions i very much appreciate the work that mr. pomeroy has done on this bill. it's an issue that concerns so many of us. i hope we can come together on a bipartisan compromise that can pass this house and for many of us whose our goal is full and permanent repeal of the death tax, i hope to work with him as well. with that i yield back the remainder of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota yields back. pursuant to house resolution 941, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill 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 repeal, to retain the estate tax with a $3,500,000 exemption, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk? -- i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is -- >> the motion -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will first report the motion. the clerk: mr. heller of nevada moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4154 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. strike after all and insert the following. section 1, short title. this shall be cited as the death tax repeal perm nancy act of 2009.

section 2, estate tax repeal made permanent. section 901 of the economic roads and tax relief reconciliation act of 2001 shall not apply to title 5 of such act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? mr. pomeroy: i make a point of order under clause 10 of rule 21. the motion increases the deficit for purposes of that rule. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard? mr. heller: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. this point of order shows the blatant ininconsistencies that the majority has under its own rules. clause 10 of rule 21, known as the pay-go rule, has amendments like in motions to recommit to be budget neutral. clause 7 of rule 16, known as the germaneness rule, constrains our ability to offer pay-fors so it be related to

the underlying bill. h.r. 4154 is drafted so narrowly that it is impossible to identify germane offsets. thus, not surprisingly, the majority has stacked the rules of the house to try to make it impossible for the minority to offer its preferred approach. we saw that two weeks ago on the s.c.r. fix. as the rules are being -- ironically, the bill before us today, h.r. 4154, doesn't even meet the house's own pay-go rules. that's right. that is because the budget resolution allows the chairman of the budget committee to simply reset the baseline to accommodate a certain amount of death tax relief. mr. speaker, you're being asked to rule on whether this motion to recommit complies with pay-go. but the base bill itself is not pay-go compliant. it would increase the deficit by more than $230 billion.

this begs the question -- if it's appropriate for the majority to consider estate tax relief under h.r. 4154 without offsets in violation of the spirit of pay-go, then why is it now inappropriate or out of order for the minority to provide even more tax relief under their amendment? i request that you overrule the point of order and allow the house to debate our alternative which is complete repeal of the death tax. thank you, mr. speaker, for the opportunity to be heard on the point of order and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. would anyone else like to be heard on the point of order. the chair will rule. the gentleman from north dakota makes the point of order the amendment proposed in the instructions in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from nevada violates clause 10 of rule 21 by increasing the deficit. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 20, the chair is provided estimates by the committee on

the budget that the net effect of the provisions in the amendment affecting revenues would increase the deficit for a relevant period. accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order. mr. heller: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? mr. heller: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the -- mr. pomeroy: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman shall suspend. the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house? for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? -- excuse me, from north dakota rise? mr. pomeroy: mr. speaker, i now table the appeal of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. mr. heller: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a suffia sufficient number havi arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-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.] d assets of approximately

they've bought up in the mortgage security market, over $800 billion. we know they created money out of thin air to do that.

we do not know how much they paid, with a bill out, they refused to buildup -- to bail out. -- who they bailed out, who they refused to bail out. they probably paid these companies, may be a goldman sachs or somebody like that, the nominal value, a face value. they might have even been worthless or worth 10 cents on the dollar. it is very important, especially when you finally come to the conclusion that this is the source of the problem, this mischief of the fed creates a business cycle, causes inflation, causes unemployment. they say they do not want transparency. they want independence. independent means the secrecy. at the american people are waking up and realizing that congress has a responsibility. they created the central bank and they are to act more responsibly in what they're doing.

host: how with the american economy function if there were not k-fed? guest: better -- if there were not the fed? guest: a lot better. in 1913 when the fed came into existence, it was not to in the years later they gave us the depression. starting in 1913 day and created an excess of credit, have interest rates too low. that was full world for i. but they still understand -- understood they could not keep doing this. it kept inflating and they had a pretty bad the depression in 1921. then there with vekton and flooding in the '20s, ghana, a a -- then they went back into

inflating in the 20s, you know, otimulating credidididididididii the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234, the nays are 186. the motion is adopted. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

order in the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. heller: in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. heller of nevada moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4154 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following -- section 1, short title. this act may be cited as the death tax repeal extension act of 2009. section 2, egtrr sunset on the

generation-skipping tax provision delayed one year. in the case of title 5 -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. heller: i ask that the amendment be read. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, jatcht nevada is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. h.r. 4154 would be better called the permanent estate tax increase for families, farmers and small businesses act. my motion to recommit still addresses elimination of the death tax. as the chair has just ruled, the sensible alternative, full permanent repeal of the death tax, is not allowable under the house majority's rules. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: would the members kindly take their

conversations off the floor into the cloakroom? middle of the aisle. the gentleman may proceed. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. therefore, this second motion to recommit is troughed to meet the arcane pro-tax increase pay-go rules. this motion continues the full elimination of the death tax for 2010 as currently scheduled and promises to the american people that it extends the full elimination one additional year to 2011. business or farming was taxed when it was created, saved and invested and spent. they were taxed annually with property tax. they don't need to be taxed yet again with death. while two years the shorter of many of us in the house would prefer, it's the only alternative left. colleagues, the flaw in h.r. 4154 are numerous. but in defense of their misguided bill, the majority

cries certainty trumps the punitive 45% rate. but the federal government shouldn't be entitled to have or even 1/3 of your assets when you die. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. if members would kindly take their kfingses off the floor, we will proceed. -- conversations off the floor, we will proceed. the gentleman may continue. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. make no mistake, the purpose of the inherit tans tax is to erase all of the individual's net worth within three generations. let me repeat that. the purpose of the inheritance tax is to erase the individual's net worth within three generations. the only thing worse than bad policy is permanent bad policy. i am sure the american people won't be upset with this

certainty of zero. today, the majority's working hard to bring new thing to the old adage, the only thing in life that is certain is death and taxes. let's remember that the unemployment rate is still high. 10% nationwide. more than 13% in my home saith of -- home state of nevada. the full repeal of the tax would create 1.5 million jobs. again, that's jobs created. who knows how many jobs would be saved by eliminating the death tax. eliminating the death tax will also have several positive effects on the economy. one recent study showed that eliminating the death tax would increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion. eliminating the death tax will increase the probability of hiring by 8.6%. eliminating the death tax will increase payrolls by 2.6%. eliminating the death tax will

expand investment by 3%. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. eliminating the death tax will create 1.7 million small business jobs and eliminating the death tax will reduce the current jobless rate by almost 1%. the american people know that the death tax punishes hard work by discouraging savings and investing. undermines job creation and frankly contradicts the essential promise of american life. they know the death tax is a jobs destroyer. colleagues -- caution our founding fathers worked for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they fought spurred largely by unfair taxation to secure their

rights to private properties and the efforts of their work. they wanted a nation where one could work, think, produce, create, invest and prosper. this made our nation different than all others at the time which created the tremendous engine of the american economy. what would they say about it confiscating a 45% of property earned over a lifetime? the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman suspend? if this aisle to my right could clear, we could continue the debate. the gentleman can proceed. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence, 18 were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers. many lost their lives or family members in at least 11 signers had their homes and property destroyed. in committing their lives, fortunes and sacred honor as the declaration of independence reads, they sacrificed to ensure their heirs would keep

what they earned. what would those who sacrificed so much say about a permanent 45% rate? congress made a promise to fully eliminate the death tax. the american people are sick and tired of broken promises from their government. congress should keep this promise to the american people and do what it committed to do eight years ago, allow the estate tax to expire in 2010 and extend that expiration to 2011. death tax should not be a taxable event. support this motion. keep the death tax buried. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. heller: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: mr. speaker, i wonder if the gentleman, my friend, would care to discuss the capital gains implications of the motion to recommit. i would yield time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman rise in opposition? does the gentleman rise in

opposition? mr. pomeroy: i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. is recognized for five minutes. mr. pomeroy: i offer to yield time to the gentleman if he'd like to discuss the capital gains tax implications of the motion to recommit. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd be happy to respond. if the gentleman is asking us to refer this piece of legislation back to ways and means budget committee i'd be happy to do so so we can discuss those issues. mr. pomeroy: reclaiming my time. that wasn't much of an answer. so let me make it a little more clear. the bill would impose a new capital gains tax obligations. 6,000 people would get estate tax relief if full repeal goes into effect. 71,000 have a new capital gains tax laid upon them because carryover basis is established instead of the stepped up in basis. in other words, when you inherit grandma's farm, if

grandma paid $100 an acre for grandma paid $100 an acre for it and it's now worth $2,000 an acre and you go to sell it, you have capital gains on all of aappreciated value over $100. that's not how the law works now. how the law works now, you inherit appropriate worth $2,000 an acre, that's your basis. there's no capital gains if you sell it for $2,000 an acre. farm bureau has said this falls insidious on farms and small businesses, the very people they claim to be helping. . the motion to recommit has been a respectable debate into the same ole rhetoric that's plagued the issue in the tax. estate tax has changed 10 times in 11 years. isn't it time we provide some certainty to the american people not just more of the uncertainty that they offer? what's more, it's not just certainty. we make the estate tax go away for 99.75% of the people in this

country. but that's not good enough for them. they'll hold out for that last few tenths of a percent even if it means laying a capital gains tax obligation on 71,000 families to achieve that end. i will not yield. i yielded once and you had -- i yielded once. mr. speaker, i yield -- mr. speaker, i want to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from florida, mr. allen boyd. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. boyd: may i ask how much time the gentleman has left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. boyd: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from north dakota for yielding. and i also thank chairman rangel for his work and also

particularly the gentleman from north dakota for his long-time dedication to resolving this issue and making it fair and permanent for families who are trying to plan estates. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak against the motion to recommit and in favor of h.r. 4154, the permanent estate tax relief for families, farmers, and small business act of 2009. the bill before us creates permanent financial guidelines for the future of families, farmers, and small businesses across this country. due to the policy enacted in 2001 under the republican leadership, financial planning for a states since then has been at best unpredictable, a crapshoot for now a decade. the leadership at that time had a chance to fix this problem because we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, but they failed to act and by doing so they failed hundreds -- or thousands ever families in this country.

-- of families in this contry. despite as i said earlier, a picture of record surpluses as far as the eye could see. instead a policy was created instead a policy was created that set an unsustainable rate for political gain. congress can do better. we can provide some permanency. the leadership of this body, my democratic lesion -- colleagues and i have chosen to so lied phi american families' by making these levels permanent. let's be be clear, the motion to recommit provides the same sort of uncertainty for folks who are planning for their estates as was done in 2001. but the motion to recommit -- what the motion to recommit does is extend the zero tax rate for one year, to the end of 2011, and then in 2012 it comes back just like it was in 2001. how in the world are families supposed to plan when they are sitting down with their lawyers

and accountants near the end of life, how in the world are they supposed to plan with those kinds of laws in place? it is hard will i -- hartley irresponsible. i would plead with you to defeat this motion to recommit. pass h.r. 4154. let's send it to the senate. hooked with pay-go and see if we can't get this country back on track economically and provide certainty and mermcy for the folks as they plan for their estates. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the question to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from nevada. mr. herl: i ask for the yeas and nays. -- mr. heller: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and

clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage if ordered and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 3570. this is a 15-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.] debt and to not allowing the

correction to occur like they did in 1921. it goes on and on. you have had recessions since then that have been numerous, but because they were able to cover over them out rather quickly and put them aside, all they did was build a much bigger

in bubble which was destined to burst, and that is what happened in 2008. that bubble has burst and we are in the midst of a correction that has a long way to go because they're doing exactly what they did during the depression, trying to prop of all the bad debt. instead of eliminating the debt, eliminating the mistakes and getting back to work, they're buying up the bad debt. instead of buying up all of the house in securities -- uc, the housing crisis triggered arab have sharply, more than they have -- you see, the housing prices should go down sharply, more than they have. there are 18 billion houses out there waiting to be bought. the last thing they need a stimulus. they need a correction. they need a pause. it would be painful for about a year, but this way, there or

drag it out for a decade or two by prolonging the agony. host: all morning we have been talking about jobs creation. and what is your prescription for it? guest: way to get -- one way would be to get rid of the federal reserve because they create the bubble. when the bubble is being inflated everybody feels good. people can buy houses. impressive? -- impressive houses go up and they think they are rich. it is all an illusion. when the correction comes inevitably, if you have unemployment. you need to have central economic planning a a -- you need to get rid of this idea that you need to have central economic planning behind closed doors by a secret group of men and women. it is a total, rejection of free market capitalism. it is keynesian economy. it has been -- a totally

predictable. they do not have a timetable. they cannot say when the bus will come or what the price of inflation will be next year or what -- i cannot say when the bust it will, or what the president's pledge will be born of one of, but the devaluation of the -- or what the price of inflation will be, but the devaluation of the dollar always occurs, and implement always occurs. host: let's take a call from pennsylvania, good morning, rich. caller: congressman paul, i know your a follower of austrian economics, but not all austrians are the same. which do you follow? guest: i think all three, they have slight disagreement.

there is one that is the best known that i looked to for the intellectual guidance. another talks about competing currencies. raw board studied under -- rothbart studied under the first one i mentioned. what is going on today is a contest between austrian economics and cannes. the austrian was a well-known economist during the '20s and '30s, during the depression, but he was rejected because people did not want to hear it. they did not want to hear that you could not regulate the money supply. people love td caines. but what has happened is that

central baking has failed. we are in the midst of this crisis. austrian, the -- austrian economists, all of them are winning right now. host: mrs. david from ohio, independent line. -- this is the david from ohio, independent line. caller: i am running for congress here in ohio's 15th district and we have a question and answer session, and i am a supporter of a non interventionist foreign policy and my opponent accused me of being an isolationist. [laughter] it kind of reminded me the address of the incident with you and john mccain there. -- it reminded me of the incident with you and john mccain there. if you were elected president in 2008, would you have kept them? could you explain why you would disband the group? if so, what we have seen more

transparency and what would their function have been? guest: is another secret group and it was created by the executive order. we do not need another group of people, even though they are part of the government like the federal reserve and the treasury and the a a cftc and sec people. to get involved and have this asano 40 to prop up markets. broadway know they've bought -- they get involved and have this subtle authority to prop up markets. for all we know they buy and sell. even if they get in the market and they sort of slow up a bad day, they get in and start buying, they cannot change the market. it is kind of like interfering in the gold market, keeping the price of gold artificially low and the dollar artificially high, eventually, the market went up. we should not have these economic planners.

in a way, they are an extension of the federal reserve and the federal reserve is a key member of the president's working group on financial markets. we should get rid of it. we should believe in the marketplace, believe in a free- market economy, and that is when people make the decision. austrian economics teaches that business does not run the show and labor does not run the show. the consumer runs the show. the consumer votes every single day. and every single thing they buy when the market is working. when the businessman is not doing well or paying too much for labor, they go out of business and they have to be left to go out of business. today, people got of business and then we prop them up, you know, all the people that make mistakes. it does not serve the high cost of labor or businesses, but it does serve the consumer. host: talk more of your velocity

on wages. people complain that they cannot compete and that -- talk more about your philosophy on wages. people complain that they cannot compete. guest: real wages are going down, but that is again back to the fed. if someone is making $25 an hour, $30 per car, it never keeps up with the cost of living. taxes are higher and sellers are going up, so that hurts labor. on the other side of the coin, if you have a free market, you would not have the fed destroying the value of the currency. but he would have the power of the labor union to push the car automobile employees, a labor in automobile industries for the steel industry or the railroad industry pushing way above the market to be paying some of these people $80 per hour when the market should be $40, but they get it because the power and influence of unions. they put them out of business. this is so dramatic.

look at what has happened in michigan were the unions are strongest. they destroyed general motors, not by themselves, but in combination with what the fed does and over regulations and a lot of other things. but companies in the south might have less regulations and they have more of a market level for labor and they survive. but you can introduce this globally. labor, once again, the businessman has to make profits to exist. he has to keep costs down to give the control of the best deal. but our whole country has interfered with the marketplace and pushed costs so high with over regulations and inflation, and all these problems. if we are pushing labor overseas. and that, of course, export jobs and everybody gets hysterical about this. they say we have to stop it, we have to try and do not permit this to happen. but they have to -- we have to draw a line and not permit this to happen.

but they have to change the policies. you have to talk about the policies that prompted this to happen. host: carl, democrats line, lebanon, oregon. caller: i would like to us can -- to ask him what we're going to do about this but that we got, and if he is talking about keeping labor down, and i can we not come to a happy medium -- why can't we come to a happy medium where we have a fair wage? a worker has got to be able to live. guest: he is absolutely right. we have to have a fair wage, but as i explained, the wage is not fair and is going down because the money is being depreciated. his question about the debt, that is important. what are we going to do? we are not one to pay it off, we know that. when a country gets so deeply in

debt that it cannot in -- cnot get paid, they liquidate it by default. when you have $10,000 in the treasury bill you are always going to get your money, but the government and the federal reserve -- of money supply last year, so if you have a treasury bill -- doubled the money supply last year, so if you average rodrigo -- have a treasury bill, you may not get as much back. the dollar is worth less right now. but the debt is liquidated. if we go $10 trillion and we inflate or destroyed the dollar value at 20% per year, that is $200 billion that was wiped off the slate. so, governments always the fault, but not like an individual or company does by refusing to pay. governments are always powerful enough to create new money and

deceive the people. but nevertheless, it is every bit as immoral and deceitful and some that should be prohibited and has to do with the nature of money. that is why paper money is so dangerous to us. host: someone writes in about your political philosophy. this year is trying to square your independence with the fact that he appreciates the fact that a public-sector brings us things like schools, roads, bridges. what would you say to that? the cause guest: attrition does not give us any of that. when eisenhower guest: the constitution does not give us any of that. when eisenhower could build the highways for defense purposes, they realized it was not constitutional to do that. but that does not mean we cannot do that. all the states could coordinate

their efforts. schools could still be local and public. we could probably do a lot better job than we have in the last 30 years or so with the federal government getting involved. but there is no authority for the federal government to get involved. there's no benefit from that. some of those functions would exist, but some of them would be picked up by private sources. you do have a lot of roads and private developments that are paid for by the development and they are protected and they have security. there are other ways it could be done. but the fact that you do not do it at the federal level in order to run of debt, because once you consumassume that you can give l these things to people, medicine, education to all of these things that are not in article one, section 8, then this becomes a political football. the politicians to say, we have got to do it, we have got to get reelected. then they vote for all of this.

then there is no money. they try to raise taxes and there is a limit. they try to borrow and there is a limit. then it comes, the fed will take care of this. the fed is this magical machine. they just crank out, they crank out new money, which is the tax because the devalued the currency. host: next question is from georgia, south, republican line. caller: the day requirement for next year is figured to about $350 billion per month, and that does not include any future bailouts we are looking straight at into the trillions. how can foreigners possibly be buying up all of this debt now, much less in the future, especially when japan and britain are pretty much doing the same thing with their horrendous debt requirements? their money printing? right now, there is

[unintelligible] guest: some of the countries, say, china for instance, they fit into this. there were glad for us to buy all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas 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. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 224, the nays is 199. the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the the speaker pro tempore:

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 225. the nays are 200. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to -- from the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3570 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. 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: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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: 194. the nays are 11. 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 house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. you may proceed. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker.

i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. on monday the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until tuesday. on tuesday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. members are advised votes could occur as early as 10:00 a.m. on tuesday. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, we will consider h.r. -- i don't have the number yet, the tax extenders bill of 2009 and h.r. 4173, the wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2009. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank

the gentleman. mr. speaker, since this is our first colloquy following the thanksgiving break, i'd like to ask the gentleman if he could give the members a sense of what legislation perhaps that we'll be voting on for the remainder of this month. i yield. mr. hoyer: first of all let me say to the gentleman it's my hope that we will adjourn the first session of the congress from the house perspective by the 18th. with respect to the bills that we are considering, obviously we have seven appropriation bills that have not yet been enacted. the continuing resolution expires on the 18th of december. it is my hope that before that time we will have provision for the passage of all seven of the appropriation bills. either individually, which may be difficult because the senate has not passed three of those bills on its floor, in one form

or another we will have all seven of those bills passed prior to the 18th. the speak earn i and -- speaker and i and leader reid all want to avoid another continuing resolution which we think is not the best way to move forward. we are hopeful we can accomplish that. in addition, the regulatory reform bill you heard will be next week. tax extenders. we have the unemployment insurance. we have cobra extension. both those expire on december 31. we have the patriot act which -- provisions of which expire on december 31. we want to address that. we have highway re-authorization which also expires on december 31. we want to address that. and we have i'm sure other bills that we will be considering. as you know, i know you're happy about it, i'm happy about it. iran sanctions be will be on the calendar as well on the suspension calendar next week. excuse me, week after.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. i know i'm joined by the gentlelady from florida in thanking you very much for your work on identify ran petroleum sanctions act and bringing that to the floor. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. if the gentleman would yield. mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the bipartisan work. i see the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, my friend, ms. ros-lehtinen, who has worked very hard on this as well with mr. berman. i'm pleased that this is coming. i think it's very important we send a very strong message as we see the iranian government and the president say they are going to do one thing but apparently never do it. so i think it's appropriate that we act. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman, i note that he did announce that we will be considering h.r. 4173 the financial regulation bill and perhaps seven appropriations bills. i don't know which form that would be in. whether it be separately or in

an omnibus form, but nonetheless all of these are incredibly large measures costing billions of dollars of taxpayer money, stretching over thousands of pages. and my question, mr. speaker, is, what is the gentleman's intention as to the period of time which members and the public have to to -- public will have to review prior to the members voting on them, and does that mean that we will still be consistent with the gentleman's representations on other bills prior to this session that we would have 72 hours for consideration and review of those bills as well as any manager's amendment and self-executing amendments in the rule? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. he is correct. i have made that representation that i want to try and accomplish that objective. as the gentleman also knows, on both sides, we have experienced this issue. at the end of the session as i

fervently hope we are closely achieving, at the end of a session obviously when you are having conference reports it's not necessarily possible to do that. if you can't get the conference reports moved quickly enough by the time you want to adjourn. however, having said that, the gentleman's correct. the reform bill, regulatory reform bill, that is going to be reported out by the committee, has been reported out, will be available this evening. and will be available i don't expect to have that on the floor until -- no sooner than tuesday of next week. so there will be plenty of time to review that piece of legislation. . we've already passed, as you

know, so from that -- for that bill there will be a lot of time. with respect to the omnibus, i think you referred to, we have discreetly, individually considered each one of those bills. they passed the house. the senate and the house have reached agreement, i think, or hopefully are on the verge of reaching agreement on those bills individually so they can be included. the senate, as i pointed out, has not considered three of the bills on the floor. and i'm not sure given their focus on health care that they will be able to do so. so in that standpoint, they would be included in a conference report as opposed to considered on the senate floor. they have been considered on the house floor. and we will give as much time as we can on those. but good news is we've considered those individually on the floor. so the overwhelming majority of those bills are well-known to members.

mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and i do realize that the house has considered its version, although we all know that when they come back from conference, especially many of the members on both sides of the aisle have some concerns about earmarks and others which would i think warrant the time to review these bills. in the same light, mr. speaker, it is the concern of many that we have an opportunity to look at any manager's amendment or self-executing amendments in the rules that are presented to the body and our having time to review that as well. and i would just make that note. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman, does he expect a final health care bill this month? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i will choose my words carefully as opposed to expect. i hope there will be a bill. clearly the senate is debating that bill. we believe it's one of the most important bills that any member will have considered during the course of their tenure in this

house, including myself. and i've been here, as you know, sometime. the senate is debating those bills now. senator reid has had great difficulty getting this bill to move along in an ordinarily -- in an orderly fashion, which i think it makes it impossible to predict when the senate will pass it. i can tell you i know that leader reid is hopeful this bill will be considered over the next 10, 12 days and that they will be able to pass it prior to the 18th of december. and i'm hopeful they can as well. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman on that. as a follow-up to that, mr. speaker, i know there was some discussion and reports that the senate may be scheduled to be in session pass the -- past the christmas holiday. i wonder if the gentleman thinks that will impact the house's schedule.

mr. hoyer: it's my expectation that it will not. i will give this caveat. if in fact the senate passes its health care reform bill early enough so that we may have a conference and conclude a conference so that sometime in december we could pass a conference report, with that caveat -- whether that will happen or not is obviously not able to predict that. but other than that circumstance, it's my expectation that we will not be in the week of the 21st or the week of the 28th. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. mr. hoyer: nor, for that matter, as the schedule reflects, the week after the first, which is the third, i guess. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. i ask the gentleman, does he expect a vote on increasing the nation's debt limit this month, and i yield? mr. hoyer: not only do i exact it -- i expect it, my belief is that it's mandatory that we do so.

obviously the united states has never defaulted on its debt. and to do so would cause international disruption in the financial markets, further exacerbating an already difficult economic situation for our country and for countries around the world. so it is not only my exception but i believe it's eanticipation to do -- not only my exception but i believe it's -- expectation to do that but i do expect it to be included in one of the pieces of legislation that we consider. i think it is absolutely essential, in my view, whether you like the debt or don't -- none of us like it -- it would be irresponsible for the congress not to pass a debt extension for debts that it's incurred. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman.

mr. speaker, i'd like to ask a follow-up to that comment. does the gentleman expect us to have an up or down vote on the increase of the debt limit or if not if it is, as he suggested, another piece of legislation, which legislation that would be? and i yield. mr. hoyer: well, that has not been decided at this point in time. we have to wait to see what the senate feels it can do in one of the conferences that we have. as the gentleman probably knows, under senate procedure, while they're considering the health bill, the obviously thing they can rise for without the necessity to have a 60 votes to go back into consideration of the health bill is a conference report. so my expectation is it will be in a conference report. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd like to turn to the question of whether this house will be dealing with what has been reported a second stimulus bill. and i know that we have been reading much about the white house jobs summit today. there's been a lot of reports

in the press about the majority's meeting on a second stimulus bill. and i'd like to ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, if he could clarify the timing, the content and the cost of a proposed second stimulus bill, and i yield. mr. hoyer: of course, the gentleman likes to use language we are not using. we're focused on jobs. stimulus is a broader reach, frankly, than what we are looking at. we do believe, though, as the gentleman has expressed on a number of occasions, that jobs is the focus. we are looking at legislation which will help to create jobs, expand our economy, ensure our growth. as the gentleman knows, the c.b.o. released their report on the recovery act, which we passed, and its impact on the economy and employment in the third quarter, which was the first quarter in eight that we have grown the g.d.p., as the gentleman knows.

that was not the case in 2008, of course. estimates that because of the recovery act, 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, more americans had jobs as a result of the recovery act. the g.d.p., according to c.b.o., is 1.2% to 3.2% higher than it would have been if we had not passed the recovery act and the g.d.p. also -- excuse me -- the unemployment rate was .3 of a point or .9 of a point lower than it would have been. mark zandy, the chief economist at moodyseconomy.com. he said that it's contributed to ending the recession. in my view, without the stimulus, the g.d.p. would still be a negative as opposed to positive. unemployment would be above

11%. and there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of october than there would have been without the stimulus. having said that, you and i both agree not enough has been done notwithstanding the fact that essentially there has been with months exception a straight line decline in the number of loss of jobs per month from the high of last month of the last administration of 747,000 lost. as you know 190,000 lost. we don't have the report on friday. if it's less than that i think which is progress, but it's not success. success will be when we start gaining jobs. in that context, i tell my friend that we are in fact looking at ways and means to spur greater job creation, allow small businesses to expand, get additional credit

as well as continuing to assist those who have lost their jobs and are in need of assistance. but i cannot -- if the gentleman will yield, i cannot at this point in time give you specifics. you have correctly observed the administration because of its concern about job creation is having a summit or forum today to seek advice from experts on economy, experts in the business field. and we are certainly going to look to them as well and talk to them. i want to also say to my friend that i would be more than pleased to receive from you and members on your side of the aisle suggestions that you might have to accomplish a greater growth of jobs in our economy. i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i certainly appreciate extension of an offer to allow us to once

again tell you our ideas. as the gentleman know, i did speak out yesterday with a list of what i call a no cost jobs plan, and i am happy to forward that to the gentleman. i have made a similar type of request of the white house, and i think it's gotten response that they too may be willing to consider some of the republican solutions to the current crisis that people are feeling across this country. mr. speaker, i would say that i am somewhat hardened to hear the gentleman talk about the ineffectiveness of the first stimulus bill. the gentleman did say that the stimulus -- term stimulus was a little broader than what they're looking at now. and in my opinion i thought that the definition of a stimulus bill was to create jobs. so if the gentleman now is agreeing with me that the creation of jobs did not hit the mark the way that it was promised on the first stimulus

bill that we do need to finally focus on job creation. that gives me a lot of confidence, mr. speaker, because at least now we are talking about the same thing. and if along those lines, again, i am thankful that the gentleman asks for our solutions, and we are going to proffer those. but i do want to suggest that we can and there are some commonsense things we can sit down and probably agree on person to person that we can do right now that wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything and we wouldn't have to be continuing to mortgage the future of our children. i think we've incurred too much debt for this country. enough is enough. and i do think that we have and will offer solutions that will begin to help that trend at the same time focus on job

creations. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will. i'd like to ask for one more point and then i'll yield. if we are talking about finally shifting to the mode, mr. speaker, of job creation, i'd like to ask the gentleman -- has there been any discussion on his -- in his caucus about perhaps holding back in some of the measures that are being discussed, such as the financial regulatory reform bill coming to the floor next week? because there is a study recently released by the university of chicago, university of college of london, george mason university economists which have said that this package of reform bills coming out of the financial services committee will reduce consumer borrowing by at least 2.1% and reduce new jobs by 4.3%. and since the study comes to the conclusion that interest rates will rise by 141 basis

points which will yield in the loss of over one million jobs over the next five years. so if we are concerned about job creation why are we moving forward with such a measure? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me start at the beginning of his statement which was written by lewis carroll who wrote "alice in wonderland," of course, when he said i characterized the stimulus package, which i have not. the c.b.o. said that the recovery act gained us 600,000 to 1.4 million new jobs. so the gentleman likes to do this. he's done it a number of times. said finally we're talking about jobs. as a matter of fact, in february we passed legislation with no help, frankly, from your side which in fact c.b.o. says has created up to 1.4 million new jobs in america. in addition, we believe we've

saved a lot of jobs in america as well. we are not where we want to be. the gentleman also indicates that i would agree that both sides of the aisle have dug a hole deeper on deficit. i say with all respect to my friend, we had an administration that was in office for eight years. the clinton administration, i will remind my friend -- i'm sure he's familiar with these statistics -- that he inherited $292 billion deficit from george bush i. he reduced that deficit that year. the next year he reduced it further. the third year he reduced it even further. the fourth year he reduced it even further. and the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth years, the clinton administration economic program took us into surplus. the only administration in your lifetime -- i am much older than you are -- the only administration in my lifetime that had four years of surplus and the only administration in my lifetime that ended their eight years with a net surplus.

so i would disagree with my friend that we contributed. in fact, your administration under mr. bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus. who said so? president bush said so in 2001. he made that into a $10 trillion deficit, the largest turnaround of any nation in the world, certainly in terms of dollars. i'm not sure on percentage. some countries have had -- third world countries have pretty bad experiences. but to turn around a $5.666 trillion surplus and turn it into a $10 trillion deficit and the worst economy we've seen in three quarters of a century under the economic program that was pursued by your side of the aisle very frankly i'm not going to take responsibility for that, i tell my friend, with all due respect. this administration was confronted with the worst economic situation of any administration since franklin

roosevelt and we have been trying with, i think, real focus and in some respect real courage because some of the things we did were very tough. you i think joined whuss we responded to your administration, the bush administration, and said through secretary paulson and mr. bernanke, the country is in cry sills. and if we do not act and act decisively we may go into a depression. you recall that my side of the aisle responded to the republican president, chief executive of our country, who said we were in crisis and we responded and 142 of us voted on a bill that nobody wanted to vote for in order to preclude us going into cry sills. your party unfortunately did not support your president as you recall on that particular vote in september of 2008. luckily we came back, we had a failure, luckily we came back. now the standing impact of that

bill, we did contribute to stabilizing this economy. it was a tough vote, americans are angry about it, we're angry about it, bailing out people who were extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible. those same people that we want to regulate next week it make sure they don't -- are not subject to the regulatory neglect that they were subjected to for eight years, when the administration's policy was to simply get out of the way, not to to regulate, not to oversee, and we saw extraordinary financial meltdown. i will tell my friend with all due respect i do not accept his premise that we haven't been talking about jobs and i do not accept his premise, i have not read the reports to which you referred, i do not accept his premise that making sure that these big financial institutions operate in a way that minimizes risk, not just to them, they can afford the risk, they stock away

money somewhere. the people who couldn't afford the risk who saw their 401-k's go into the tank, saw their retirement put at risk, so i tell my friend, next week we're going to acosmopolitan legislation hopefully that will ensure merge doesn't go down that road again. just as frankly roosevelt in the 1930's responded with regulation to ensure that the stock market excesses and betting on which people lost did not reoccur and very frankly has kept us pretty stable. but unfortunately a lot of the regulatory neglect which i want to make clear was not only in the bush administration, there was some in the previous administration, we all have learned our lesson. i would hope would you join with us in adopting this regulatory reform package which would protect consumers and ensure responsible behavior on behalf of those who we untrust with large parts of our national

health and the health of our economy. and i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would say he would agree with me that since the beginning of the 111th, priority one for this nation has been job creation. and the facts are the facts. the stimulus bill was brought to this floor with the promise that it would stop unemployment from exceeding 8%. we are now at over 10% national unemployment. the facts are the facts. under this administration the deficit has tripled since the last administration left. that's the facts. the gentleman points out c.b.o. said that we created x number of jobs. i would say to the gentleman, while you have people across this country, 10.2% of the work force being out of work, there is no way that anyone in this country would believe c.b.o.

when it says the economy is better. that's the facts. and if we're going to be about job creation, my simple point is this about bringing the package of financial regulatory reform bill to the floor. i don't doubt the gentleman's intention to try and do the right thing. but the reality is, this is a case where we're doing the wrong thing for the right reason. this bill impacts negatively the job creators. we know this bill will increase interest rates 141 basis points which means the law of an additional million-plus jobs over the next five years. in that vain i would ask the gentleman again, if we are to see our -- vein, i would ask the gentleman again, if we're to see our way to work together, let's relieve the harm. this bill adds to the harm. in the same way i'd ask the

gentleman that we continue talk of the bill known as card check. if i've heard it once i think all members have, from small businesses and large, the job creators, please, please don't pass that bill because that will create a huge drain on job creation. so i ask the gentleman, is there any sense in his caucus that maybe now in times of high unemployment is not the time to bring up card check. and i yield. mr. hoyer: who mentioned that? do you have any other wind mills you'd like to tilt at? mr. cantor: the gentleman may want to come to my district and talk to the businesses there. i think i can get many individuals who have put their entire lives' investment and savings on the line and don't want to see washington or this congress continue to threaten the very existence of those businesses and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman

for yielding. we got off your premise easily. i think the reason we got off to another bill that's in the senate pretty quickly is because we did create jobs, c.b.o. says we created jobs, and the gentleman says the economy isn't in better shape today than it was when we took over from the last administration, i would remind the gentleman, 747,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the bush administration. 747,000 jobs. 3.8 million jobs, 3.8 million jobs were lost in the last year of the bush administration as opposed to the last year of the clinton administration, comparing last years of two administrations, 1.9 the million jobs were added -- 1.9 million jobs were added. i suggest to the gentleman, what we see on this regulatory reform bill is exactly the philosophy that was brought under the bush

administration. if we simply get out of the way, don't bother anybody, just get out of the way, government, take the referees off the field, and all the players will play fairly, my experience in life has not been that. my experience in life, when you get the referees off the field, somebody leaves the line about a second before the ball is hiked. and people lose. and that's what happened. the s.e.c. didn't regulate, the fdic didn't regulate the way it should have, the administration didn't regulate the way it should have and what went wrong? the financial community went amok. mr. greenspan came before the congress of the united states and said, i made a mistake, i thought people would act consistent with a fair evaluation of the risks they were undertaking and mr. greenspan said, i was wrong. in fact, they did not and they incurred risks and who paid the

price? all of us paid the price. all of us as taxpayers paid the price at secretary paulson's request. republican secretary treasury, to try to sustain this economy not going into a depression. so i would disagree with my friend that we haven't addressed the issue of jobs, we have. i disagree with the gentleman who said 1.4 million jobs. we're still losing jobs, we are, but we're losing and not none of the statistics by the way that i have intoned this afternoon has the gentleman rejected as being accurate. 747,000 jobs lost the last month of the bush administration, less than 190,000 this month. isn't that where we want to be? of course it's not. we want to create 190,000. we want to create 500,000 jobs. we want to get people back to ork work but the first thing we had to do was reverse the extraordinary decline that we inherited in january of this year. i think we've done that.

and i will tell my friend that when those who open up their retirement funds that are invested in mutual funds or something else and find that their retirement funds are up 57% from the low point of when this -- shortly after this administration took office, that they're going to think that's progress. is it where they want to be? no, they want to be back at 100% of where they were. they're not there yet. we need to keep working. and that's why we're considering a jobs bill before we leave here, if we can put one together, hopefully in a bipartisan fashion, we'll do so and i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and my purpose in bringing up the notion that we still have this card check bill out there is to demonstrate the fact that there really is a disconnect as far as doing what we say and doing -- follow what i do. because if we're serious about relieving the pain on job creators, if we're serious about getting americans back to work, we wouldn't be necessarily

bringing the wrong bill to the floor for the right reason which is my point. mr. speaker, no one is quibbling with intention here. i think that i would agree with the gentleman, there's a sense in america that there is not a level playing field and giving people a fair shot as their returns on wall street or a fair shot in terms of heavy regulations in hand coming from washington. so we can all agree that we need to make the environment better for job creators and people who want to jump in and take risk. but the financial regulatory reform package being brought to the floor just as the card check bill that's still being spoke of around here, those are job killers. we ought to at least relieve the harm so that people will we're relying on to create jobs can get back to work doing that that

was simply my point, mr. speaker. and in closing, mr. speaker, i would note to the gentleman that 2.8 million americans have lost their jobs since the passage of the majority's first stimulus bill. and the nation's debt now stands at over $12 trillion. so i thank the gentleman for his time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? moir hoyer mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on monday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. clarke: thank you very much, mr. speaker. just last week our nation celebrated thanksgiving. it was a time for families across this nation to unite and reflect on the things that we're grateful for. this thanksgiving i looked around my holiday table admiring the diversity of my family. many of whom are american-born citizens, some naturalized citizens and some jamaican immigrants. we are a blended family blessed with the realization of our own american dream. i realized that my story enjoyed the certain similarity to the first thanksgiving celebration. native americans breaking bread with pilgrims, a blending of two different cultures, one immigrant, one native. like my family, many families across this nation are a blend of many cultures and citizen statuses and are affected by our dysfunctional immigration system. mr. speaker, immigration reform is too important to be delayed.

as we prepare to debate immigration reform, i'm working with my colleagues to ensure access to the american dream. just like you i too ambition the face of immigration. and all of us coming together representing the diversity of this great nation, the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker. . ms. ros-lehtinen: 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 extraneous material, mr. poe, december 10 for five minutes. mr. jones, december 10 for five minutes. mr. burton, december 7, 8, 9 and 10 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does

the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: 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, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials, ms. woolsey of california, mr. defazio of oregon, ms. kaptur of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the personal requests. the clerk: leaf of absence requested for mr. lucas of oklahoma for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i rise

to ask what happened to the civilian surge in president obama's new strategy for afghanistan? in his address to the nation on tuesday night, the president said that there are three parts to his afghanistan strategy, a military effort, a civilian surge and partnership with pakistan. while the president spoke at great length about the military effort and about pakistan, he gave virtually no details about the civilian surge. in fact, he devoted only one sentence of his speech to it, a brief sentence about agricultural assistance. earlier this year, with great fanfare, the president unveiled his plans for a civilian engagement. he said it would help the afghan people to rebuild their economy, infrastructure, education

system, justice system, government and civil society. i supported this policy because i believed that helping the afghan people to improve their lives is the best way to defeat violent extremists. but it's now painfully obvious that the white house has all but forgotten about the civilian surge. it appears to have been lost in his plan to escalate the war with 30,000 more troops, which is deeply disappointing to me. but it's not the only reason why i oppose the escalation. i oppose it because the american people don't support it. and can't afford it. in fact, america's military spending in afghanistan alone next year will now exceed the entire official military budget of every other country in the world. the escalation will leave the afghan people to see our troops

as an occupying army. in the history of afghanistan, shows that the afghan people will never accept a foreign occupation. as a result, the plan will boomer and because it will help the taliban when they are recruiting for new members. the escalation will also lead to more casualties of our troops and it will continue to stretch our military forces, which are already stretched much too thin. it will reduce the dwell time placing even greater burdens on them and their families. the president's new strategy, mr. speaker, also doesn't include a realistic exit plan. the president talks about transferring responsibility for the war to afghanistan within 18 months, but since there is very little chance that the afghans will be ready by then, our

troops are likely to be stuck for many, many years to come. finally, i'm disappointed in the president's plan because it continues to rely on the military options that have failed. and at the same time, it ignores the far more effective alternative that is available to us. that alternative is smart security. smart security calls for a strong emphasis on diplomacy, humanitarian aid and economic development for the afghan people. that is what will stablize afghanistan. that is what will win the hearts and minds of the afghan people. more broadly, smart security includes a comprehensive plan that would eliminate the root causes of extremism in afghanistan and elsewhere. it dismantles existing networks of extremists and it would stop the spread of nuclear and conventional arms around the

world. i have proposed a smart security platform for the 21st century, mr. speaker. and it's in my bill, house resolution 363. i invite every member of the house to read it and to work with me to implement it. mr. speaker, i'm as committed to defeating extremism in afghanistan as anyone. and i do not believe that simply pulling our troops out of afghanistan overnight is the right way to go. but i do believe that the afghan people need political, economic and social solutions for their problems. they do not need a military solution. that's why i will join with others throughout our nation in the days ahead to oppose the escalation of this war and to urge the president to shift to smart security to make our nation and the world a safer place. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. wolf from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: mr. speaker, in his speech at west point earlier this week, president obama police italy designated yemen as an emerging al qaeda strong hold, quote where al qaeda attempt to establish a foothold, they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnership. how can the president reconcile these legitimate concerns about somalia and yemen while at the same time releasing guantanamo bay to these dangerous unstable countries. last month, the obama administration released another detainee to yemen, information hidden to the american people under the provision in the fy 2009 spending bill explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of any information to the american people. if the american people knew who these detainees were, the acts of terror they committed or to

what countries they were going to be released, they would never stand for it. this is a dangerous precedent given that more than 74 guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorism. there is a real concern about the potential of these remaining detainees to return to a life of terror. the american people deserve the facts. i encourage the public to visit "new york times" guantanamo times docket to review what constant information about these detainees was released by the previous administration. i know they will find these deeply troubling. of the many unstable countries to which detainees may be sent, i'm most concerned about the impending release of 26 detainees, a growing haven to yemen and growing haven to al qaeda in the persian gulf. it's my understanding that the administration is also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic

understanding of the world affairs would agree is unacceptable. unfortunately, this, again, information has been classified. as the president acknowledged, yemen is one of the most unstable countries in the world today and a country where al qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year. the director of the national counterterrorism center stateed in october, voice of america interview, quote, in yes, ma'amen we have witnessed the re-emergens of al qaeda and the possibility they will become the base of operation, end quote. a number of former guantanamo bay detainees have returned to yemen to launch trit attacks. in october, saudi police prevented a suicide bomber attack as to slipped across the border. one of these would-be bombers was a former guantanamo detainee

released in 2007 to saudi arabia. he quickly left saudi arabia for yemen, where he rejoined al qaeda. in september, 2008, another former guantanamo bay detainee helped orchestrate the trit attack in yemen killing 10 guards and civilians. since that time, al qaeda's posture in yemen has grown stronger with the merger of al qaeda into one group with yemen as its base for training and operations. yemen is now home to the radical cleric, who influenced the alleged fort hood gunman, major hassan and who believes to be a critical link to radicalize americans and europeans. i ask the president to halt the release of delainyees to unstable countries.

it is dangerous to return trit detainees to danger youse countries. if this country is not prepared, this congress must take action to provide oversight and reconsider these irresponsible decisions. but this congress has yet to hold a single hearing to raise these concerns and demand answers from this administration. in closing, mr. speaker, the american people deserve better judgment from this administration and better oversight from this congress. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. poe of texas. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to claim mr. poe's time at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the lady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: 62 years ago

on november 29, 1947, the united nations did something it should be very proud of, that day, the united nations general assembly voted overwhelmingly to authorize the creation of a jewish state, paving the way of a democratic state of israel. since then the path of the u.n. and israel have difficult verged. israel's freedom, democracy and prosperity are a model for the region and the world. the u.n., however, has abandoned its founding principles, has been manipulated and coerced by dictatorship, dictatorship after dictatorship and been plagued by mismanagement. no where has the misguided path of the u.n. been more evident than in its bias towards israel. this week, instead of

commemorating israel's beginnings and achievements, the u.n. repeated its ritual of mourning israel's existence by adopting six anti--israel resolutions and did so under the guise of its international day of solidarity with the palestinian people, celebrated the same day as that historic 1947 general assembly vote to create a jewish state. but where is the u.n.'s international day of solidarity with the people of israel, who continue to be threatened by hamas, hezbollah and other such militant groups and by the state sponsors of iran and syria who continue to pursue nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them. in the face of continued anti--israel bias at the u.n., what has the united states done to stand up for our ally and

fellow democracy? aram bass dor susan rice promised the u.s. would be fighting against the anti--israel rhetoric at the u.n. unfortunately, this was easier said than done. the attacks at the u.n. are not an occasional diversion, they are relentless, they per vade the u.n. and they are not easily stopped. an excellent case study is the u.n.'s response to israel's conduct last winter of operation cast led which was carried out to defend israeli citizens from rocket and mortar attacks by hamas and other extremist groups in gaza. the human rights council authorized a fact-finding mission with a prejudicial mandate to investigate israel and only israel. the mission released the so-called goldstone report that falsely accused israel of deliberately attacking civilians implicitly denied israel the

right to self-defense and recommended that the case be referred to the international criminal court. despite the u.s. membership and engagement in the human rights council, that rogue gallery adopted the report's recommendation and condemned israel. but lest we frget that human rights council has adopted seven anti--israel resolutions and perpetrated a growth and anti-semitic assault. so it should not come as a surprise that the human rights council endorsed the goldstone report. the general assembly quickly followed suit. the high commission for human rights praised the report. secretary general moon has promised to transmit the report to the u.n. security council where only a u.s. veto stands in the way of further anti--israel

action. and the i.c.c. prosecutor has announced that he is considering launching an investigation into israel's conduct even though israel is not an i.c.c. member state and has a robust, independent judiciary that is presently dealing with a number of cases raised. these efforts to deny israel its right to self-defense can and will be used to deny that same right to other free democracies, including the united states. why do i say this? well, the i.c.c. prosecutor has already declared that he has jurisdiction over afghanistan and is performing a preliminary investigation into u.s. and nato operations in that country, which could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of our american soldiers. these are the agenda.

the era of engagement and increased funding to the u.n. has not made a positive difference at all. mr. speaker, it is time for the u.s. to use our strongest leverage to billions of taxpayer dollars that we contribute to the u.n. every year. it is time to cut off funding to the u.n. until it produces real effective reform. and in closing, mr. speaker, for our ally israel and servicemen and women and for the rights of free democracies everywhere, there is no time to lose. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. kaptur from ohio. ms. kaptur of ohio. jones of north carolina. jones. burton of indiana, mr. burden of indiana. -- burton of indiana.

mr. moran of kansas. moran of kansas. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i have some documentation i need to set up so i'll claim the time and i got to go get that.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, my name is keith ellison, congressman he willson, and i'm here to claim the time -- ellison, and i'm here to claim the time on behalf of the progressive message. we come to discuss critical issues and a progressive perspective on these same issues. the progressive message is put on and organized by progressive caucus members who happen to represent one of the largest caucuses in the congress and the purpose of this message is to focus on critical issues from a progressive perspective. that means a perspective that all americans are welcome and concluded -- included, that be-- we need civil rights, human rights, we need economic justice for working people and working families, we need to address

poverty and we need to address peace in the world. the idea that america, a country blessed, could help bestow blessing upon other people in the world through example and not through imposition. the idea that the united states, a country blessed, can help demonstrate through an example what human rights can do, what respect for rule of law can do, what respect for human rights, women's rights can do, progressive caucus is an instrument through which progressive ideas are shared and tonight what we want to talk about, mr. speaker, is jobs, absolutely that's the topic tonight. jobs is what we'll be talking about and i'd like to hear from anyone who might be listening later on what their perspective is on the jobs picture and what we can do about it. 10.2%, mr. speaker, is what the

unemployment rate is at this time. it could well climb higher by the end of the year. the fact is we have a jobs crisis, we have a jobs emergency and we must do something about it now. and it's important to point out that as much as people who are unemployed need jobs, and they do, other people who are employed need the unemployed to get jobs. it's important to bear in mind that when people are working their income goes down, their purchases at the store go down, their ability to consume and buy things that they need goes down and if the store isn't selling then they can't put on more workers, they may even have to lay some off, so this unemployment problem actually puts downward pressure on demand which puts other businesses who do have employees on the payroll in a position where they have to reconsider that. not only is the lack of a paycheck detrimental to the family that is not employed but

it also creates generational problems and it creates problems for the person who's unemployed because when the economy turns around and they can get back in a position where they can maybe find that job, the employer's going to, hey, what was going on with you over the last three years or six months? and that hole in the resume has real consequences for that worker which may extend over he the course of that person's lifetime. and obviously when unemployment is chronic and people are out of work for a long stretch of the time their children sometimes are impacted by this and have to not only go with lower family income which is obviously harmful to their development but still are in a position where they've seen a parent go jobless for quite a long time which disadvantages them in terms of their ability to know how to access the job market and their

hope, prospect and optimism as it relates to getting work. so unemployment is a problem, we got to do something about it, and it is time to act. time to act. though the democratic caucus and congress did not create this situation and it certainly wasn't created overnight it does need to be fixed very soon. 10 months of the new leadership of the white house cannot eclipse that of nearly 10 years of george bush and republican congress who bankrupted the public trust. after nearly a decade of handling -- of handing over middle class tax dollars to the wealthiest 1% we've now got to take real action for working america. after nearly a decade of a policy that encouraged multimillion-dollar c.e.o. bonuses over raises for american workers, we've got to do something about the job picture in america.

the economic policies of the last 10 years put president obama and this congress in a situation where it may not have been a situation of our making but it is a problem that we have a responsibility to correct. and we're not going to say that, yeah, we got handed two wars, yeah, we got handed hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, crumbling infrastructure, a home mortgage foreclosure crisis, one out of eight mortgages is in default, a global climate crisis and a financial sector ravaged by greed and lax regulation, we're not going to rely on any excuse, we're going to get after the problem and we're going to do it now. in short, the greatest economic and financial crisis since the great depression is visiting the american economy right now and people are feeling it and it's time to do something about it. and this is why we're proposing and i'm proposing and i'm encouraging other people to

support it a jobs bill that would do a few things. american jobs, invest in transportation and schools, schools all over america are crumbling, schools are all over america have old pipes, schools all over america are drafty and need windows replaced and the paint peeling in many of them. not all of them but many of them. and any school teacher or any principal or any school kid can tell you that. we need people to do the work. we have people who are willing to do the work and we have things that need to be worked on. what we have to do is bring the two together, invest in transportation including transit, urban transportation, light rail and schools. this is an urgent problem, it needs fixing and people need work, let's pay them to do it. state and local government relief. now all over this country states

and cities and locates are having to cut back on services that they provide to their citizens. governor arnold schwarzenegger neglecter has taken the public circle and said, without the stimulus package 100,000 teachers in california would be out of work. so that was an example of a good thing. but it's not nearly enough. we need more to be done because in this era and in this time we see local governments having to lay off police officers, firefighters, public works people, teachers, we can't allow this to happen, state governments and local governments around the country are facing serious deficits and the federal government should step in to help. we also need to strengthen safety nets. now during times of economic downturn there's greater pressure on our food shelves,

greater pressure on our clothing shelves and we need to understand that when unemployment runs out a lot of families are just left without. what are we going to do about it? we need to extend unemployment benefits, food stamps and programs like that and i just want to let folks know that this is economically from an economic standpoint, the not just good work, it's not just charitable, it's not just the right thing to do, it also is very, very important to stimulate the economy because when you give somebody food stamps they take that and they go right to the store and they purchase groceries for their family. what does that do for the grocery store that's receiving that coupon that can redeem that for money? it's helping that grocery store. what is that doing for that grocer who is thinking about whether he or she has to lay off a few workers because people just aren't coming in buying like they used to, because the

economy's down? well it helps them keep those people on the job and if we do well enough it might even actually help them add some people on the job. what happens if that store has to lay off a few folks and we don't come through with some of these basics? what happens is they have to lay off some folks, now you have more people on unemployment insurance, they can't find a job within the right amount of time, then those people are just without. and they are putting pressure on the food pantries and the food shelves and they're just really suffering. so these things have a ripple affect. what i'm saying is if you can think of a coupon, a food stamp coupon, it's not a piece of pape that are can get you some food, think of it as a rock that you throw into a pond. i'm saying that that food stamp coupon and that unemployment insurance has a ripple affect that is very strong and the multiply affect of that is good because it gets right into the economy. it gets right into the economy to help people make the basic needs.

it also helps fuel the retail sector and then all the way back to the wholesale sector. so this is basically just a few things we can do right now to alleviate real pain people are suffering all over this country. we have to act, we got to do something about it and we cannot say that things that were done in the past, although a lot of bad decisions, economic decisions, were made over the last eight years and the obama administration and this congress are trying to fix it, we can't rely on that, we've got to do something about it now, the american people deserve answers, especially the people who have been chronically unemployed. today the white house is hosting or has hosted already an economic summit to discuss how to move the economy forward. this is good news, it's the president taking responsibility for dealing with the needs of americans. i admire that tremendously. the fact is, we do need more public jobs.

there's broad support and work moving to respond to the need of american jobs. i want to commend the campaign for america's future, the afl-cio, fciu and other labor organizations and groups that come together to help people, but also many employers and many small businesses who are out there concerned about employment. . >> i want to point out we face a period of extended unemployment if we don't act now. people think, ok, the economy goes up and the economy goes down. but the fact is that the economy is a social institution and unless people in society do something about it, the business cycle won't necessarily go up and include more jobs. we've got to do that. that's something we need to work

on. we need to help small businesses get greater lending and invest in infrastructure and make these kinds of investments so americans can get back to work and the economy moving again. many of you watching television and watching the nightly business news may know that wall street seems to be moving in the the right direction. that's good for them. but the fact is the average american worker is under tremendous anxiety because they know they might be next. as one former republican president once said, a recession is when your neighbor is out of work and the depression is when you're out of work. for 10.2% of americans, this is a depression and we need to work on that right away. let me point out a few other things. this has precedent in the united states. this is not something new to our

country. we have stepped forward in the past. in fact, i was in my beautiful state of minnesota after i enjoyed the great victory over the chicago bears, and i went for a walk and i saw that there was a picnic table that had written on it, w.p.a., 1934. americans in the past have stepped forward and dealt with economic crises. in the 1930's and again in the 1970's, we responded to extraordinary hardship by adding jobs, jobs to the array of programs and services designed to help our people and to help the economy move out of recession. the program that we envision today will provide work to the jobless and meet the needs in our communities by helping people meet their every day needs and boost demand, which would help speed economic recovery. a new jobs program would be run by local elected officials, who

are closest to communities and best understand their needs. local communities best understand the needs of the local community. so it wouldn't be congress saying, this many jobs for head start, this many jobs for that. it would be congress sending funds to state and local governments that then those local governments could use to determine what is needed. and there are a lot of things that are needed. some of the projects that are needed are paint and repair of schools, peeling paint, community centers and libraries. you'd be surprised what you might find if you went to a local library. you might find some local libraries are not in good repair. that's because they were built years and years ago and are in need of upgrade. we need to clean up abandoned and vacant properties to get rid of the bright. as everyone knows, we went through a major foreclosure crisis and it's not over.

what's the reality? you have abandoned houses which people could live in if these places were maintained and upgraded. but some of them have seen the copper stripped out, the grass grow long, windows knocked out. unemployed people could be hired to help maintain these properties through a jobs program. this is important all over the country. even if you want to make sure that these buildings are secured and boarded until someone can buy them, these are things that are important. remember, whenever there is a foreclosure on a property, two bad things happen. one is, somebody's out of their house. the other thing is -- and those people aren't paying property taxes like they used to in the past. not only is the city not getting property income anymore, but the city has to pay out in order to maintain that property. so they just don't lose money, they now have an expense that

they have to deal with when you have a foreclosure. that's why we need people to maintain these properties and this is something local communities might have to do with this money. we need to expand emergency food programs and reduce hunger and promote family stability. did you know, mr. speaker, that one in five children in america are in poverty? in america, one in five children in poverty? children of all colors, children of all cultures, children of all faiths. this is something our country has to respond to. and for so many of these children in poverty today in this massive recession we're in, these are children who may not have parents who are in a union, which would probably guarantee them a higher wage and that's why i support unions or public employees like teachers and police officers. many of these folks are just the

hard-working folks out there who keep the playground safe and clean, who keep the city in good repair, folks who work at the head start and people who do child care and people who do these tough jobs every single day. and some of these folks they may not have a big degree or certificate but they need to earn good money and have a good job and maybe that job is the one thing that could keep and lift that family out of poverty so one of those children who are among the one in five of poverty won't have to be in poverty for too long. we could augustment staffing at head start, early childhood programs, senior centers. we could renovate and enhance parks and other public spaces as i just said. program we envision place special emphasis on delivering job opportunities and needed

services to low-income communities and communities of color suffering depression, level of unemployment and distress. everybody in this economy -- well, not everybody in this economy, the rest of us are fighting out here and it's not easy. small business owners, a lot of folks are getting hurt. as nearly everybody is feeling the pain in this economy, it's important for us to remember that there are some folks who are feeling it even more painfully than the average. i want to point out that unemployment among african americans in august was not the 15.2% that i mentioned, but 15.7%. that's serious. that's serious. very serious problem. unemployment for people who are of the hispanic background is 13.1%. if you're talking about young people, african american and

latino young people who are between the ages of 16 and 30, we are talking about unemployment upwards of 35%. so we have to do something in these chronicically marginalized communities where people are left out there and often a second thought. we need to reform this and got to deal with this. and we need a program to build up infrastructure. let's get the union guys back out there on the field making our roads and making our infrastructure, building those things up and absolutely let's get the public employees back in and let's not let the teachers and cops get laid off but let's not forget that young teenager of color who is out there without any prospect. we don't want them turning in the wrong direction but staying in the right direction. while i mention statistics for african american and hispanic

young people, don't think for a minute that young white people in rural communities and urban communities are not having elevated unemployment rates as well. the youth are being unemployed at higher rates than other people, regardless of background and we have to step up and do something about it and we can do something about it. we still have over $200 billion of tarp money and stimulus dollars and these need, i think, to be directed towards employment programs similar to what we have done in the 1930's and 1970's when americans were out of work. i want to say that yes it's true that 20% of all young people in america are living in poverty, but one in three african american young people are living in poverty. serious issue. their parents need work and we have to do something about it. if we act quickly, a jobs program like this could put

hundreds of thousands of people of various skill levels to work during the next year, 2010 and will continue to provide job opportunities for several years as our economy recovers. people paying taxes, which could help lower the deficit, people who are paying child support or just paying the monthly expenses of their family. this is all very important. the time to act is now. and i propose and i think we should all support a program that could create -- we can create one million american jobs in very short order if we put about $40 billion into it. the time to act is now and make that investment. we need to make this investment if we want to lower the deficit. we need to make this investment if we want to increase demand. we need to make this investment if we want to keep people from being chronically unemployed.

let me turn now to the need for a critical infrastructure development. now, i have been talking about lower waged workers so far. i want to talk about infrastructure development. do you know that if you look across america, you look across the roads and bridges, look across transit and look across some of these aging sewer lines and even fiber optic and if you look at the needs of rural communities across america who need to get wired in on broadband, we are looking at over $3 trillion infrastructure needs in our country. and the beautiful thing about spending this kind of money to invest in american infrastructure is that it stays here. these are not jobs that are going abroad, but these are going to be american jobs, because you can't lay fiber optic cable in america in some

other country. it's got to be here. that person is going to be paid here. that person is going to be employed here. and that money is going to go into the united states and funneled back to america. infrastructure investment is critical to in lifting our economy out of this very difficult economic situation. and we have to do it anyway. you know, i'm very excited about this idea of investing in broadband in rural communities. you know, it was in the 1930's when visionary political leaders like franklin delano roosevelt said, there is no reason why rural america should be in the dark. rural like that, an idea conceived when the united states was in a depression. now, some people who think that bold action can only be taken when things are good economically, they have to

contend with the fact that bold action was taken when we had a depression in the 1930's. bold action like rural electric try fix. it brightened up rural communities all over the united states. we had put up the telephone lines all across this country so that you can turn on and flick on a light in rural america. what it did is absolutely improve the economic viability of rural america. people no longer had to move into the crowded city when they could do their business in the rural areas. this is important to bear in mind. it is critical to bear in mind that critical jobs and infrastructure have been built in america even during times of economic downturn. very important. community infrastructure programs creating over one million jobs at the community

and neighborhood level is what we need now. we need these kind of programs so we can create immediate opportunity, so we can create infrastructure. i'm from the city of minneapolis. and in migrate city of minneapolis, we had on august 4, 2007, a bridge collapse into the mississippi river. 13 people died and 100 have injuries like spinal column injuries as they fell 65 feet from the bridge to the water. now, at the end of the day, this crisis and this tragedy occurred because we did not maintain that infrastructure well enough. i'm not saying it's anybody's fault. i'm sure everybody did the best they could, but the fact is if we would have had a stronger infrastructure commitment that would make bridges around this country a priority to repair and to fix and to rebuild, this

tragedy may not have happened, but it did happen. and so we put out a clarion call for infrastructure development in our country and i say we need to do this anyway and develop infrastructure so we can avoid horrible tragedies like the one that happened in my city. but as importantly, we need to do it now to put americans back to work. during the first six to nine months, if we could pass a gr solid community infrastructure program, the program could develop a fast track for jobs, projects could be limited to certain activities such as key priorities and within a short amount of time, we could see these infrastructure developments paying great developments paying great dividends for americans. i want to just talk to you a

little bit about some of the things we've been seeing in our economy that really, really do cause tremendous amount of pause. i think it's something we really need to pay some close attention to. and these are trends in our economy that i just feel we need to pay some greater attention to and this is not in the way of just describing what we should do. it's really kind of talking about what we have done. because in the course of the last few weeks, we've seen people be highly critical of the stimulus package. i think we need to look back at what the stimulus package did. some people, because it has not stopped the increase in unemployment, say it didn't work. i say this is an incorrect analysis. i believe the recovery act has actually helped a lot of people stay employed and actually stopped this economic crisis from getting worse and slowed

the rate of unemployment. but we need to do more. let's just say what the recovery act did do. it created over a million jobs. that's what it did do. it created over 250,000 education jobs. as i said, it was governor arnold schwarzenegger who said that but for the stimulus, over 100,000 teachers would be out of work. 30,000 jobs are created or saved by businesses that have received federal contracts from just a small fraction of the recovery act. very important. let me say this, half a million jobs, you know, half a million homeowners have been -- have signed up for foreclosure prevention programs, reaching

an important early goal. and the program that was launched last march, aimed to help this half a million borrowers by november 1 and with the ultimate goal of helping over four million borrowers before it expires. you know, 10,000 -- here's a number for you. 10,000 -- 10,015.86, the dow jones industrial average increased, surge tovered 10,000, passing the 10,000 point mark level much faster than expected and racking up 53% gain in the last seven months. that's improvement of the economy that has helped some but has not helped enough. it just shows, though, that if we do invest in our economy, it does help. it does improve the lives of people. it's not money that we shouldn't -- things would be much worse if we didn't spend that stimulus money and make those important public sector

investments. the number of road and bridge projects already improved under the recovery act, which creates jobs is a thousand. the number of roads and bridges, 8,000 roads and bridges projects already under way because of the recovery or stimulus. and now the percentage of spending that's now obligated under the recovery act, that means money under the -- in the pipelines, ready to be spent, is about half. this 50% mark exceeds the initial projection for the program, showing that investment is going out quickly to help boost the economy right away. but still, we have a job crisis and still we have to do something about this jobs crisis. let me tell you a little bit more about how the recovery act has been so far. there's been a lot of disinformation about the recovery act.

they said, the president said it's going to stop unemployment at 8%, it went up by two more percent. media people say it would be 12% if the recovery act for not put in place. let me talk a little bit more about what this economic stimulus has done so far and make a case for what more needs to be done. a recent report from the council of economic advisors shows the recovery act and other policy actions have saved or created over a million jobs, while only about a quarter of the recovery act spending has been able to get into the economy. many projects are in the pipeline and are on their way. the report, this report by the council of economic advise jurors, estimates the recovery act has had particularly strong effects in manufacturing, construction, retail trade and

temporary employment services. the employment effects are distributed across states with larger effects in states more severely impacted. states like michigan, ohio, many state, even my own state of minnesota, others as well, are being -- are getting this important economic recovery money so we can turn our economy around. according to jared bernstein, chief economist in the office of the vice president, quote, all signs of the private estimates to this fragmentary data point to the conclusion that the recovery act did indeed create or save about a million jobs in its first seven months, a much-needed lift to a very difficult period in our economy which is something i think we must pay attention to and cannot ignore. i just want to talk a little bit more about the success of the recovery act, not that it's completely succeeded. we'd like to see unemployment headed down, not just this rate

of unemployment slowdown, but to make sure that we understand that providing economic fiscal stimulus does help our economy. it's important to review the facts. the recovery accountability and transparency board, as you know, we didn't just send money out we got a transparency board to look at it all, released its first report on the recovery act spending that shows that recipients so far, it shows the act is helping to get americans back to work. as i said, mark zandy, of moody's economics, said less than 2% of -- we'd have 2% greater unemployment, but for the economic recovery act which is so important. according to a report issued by the recovery, accountability, and transparency board, the act shows that businesses that received federal contracts from

stimulus spend regular ported created or -- creating or saving 30,000 jobs. the board will release a more extensive report, has released a more extensive report last month, which i'll get to in a moment. now, i'd like to talk a little bit now, just move on, about this unemployment -- i have this graph with me i'd like to share with you, mr. speaker. just show folks kind of what we're looking at. it's important that we talk about creating these jobs, as i just mentioned, the economic recovery project, jobs we're creating or working on. it said -- and what this chart shows is that part of our strategy for job creation must be infrastructure as i mentioned and must be creating public sector, public works jobs, which is important, but a third aspect is clean energy

and green jobs. this is visionary, forward-looking kind of job proposal we need to pay attention to. investing $150 billion in clean energy will create a net gain of 1.7 million jobs and improve opportunities for low income families. these are jobs for the future. these are jobs for the next period. these are jobs for now and into the future. clean energy jobs. clean energy jobs created. 2,500 to 10,000 jobs across america. places in rural areas. 10,000 to 50,000 jobs in these more darkly shaded areas, where people live. sparser population, but people need to work. and more than 50,000 jobs in the darkly shaded areas. as you can see, these are our industrial-manufacturing sectors, places like indiana,

michigan, places like illinois, places like ohio, pennsylvania, new york, georgia, south carolina, places like florida, texas, and california. very important chart. a part of our conversation must revolve around what we're going -- what our job strategy is. and what we expect to do in this period to create jobs for americans. the thing is, is that jobs -- having a job is one of the most important things any person can do. a job is not just income, but a job also gives you pride and dignity. a job also is something that allows you to feel that you are making a contribution to society. a job -- a job is something that you can go to and you can come home and look your kids in the eye and say, you know what,

i put in, i'm productive. this is what i've done to help you and to help our society be better. it's important to do something about the millions of unemployed today, people who are in the ranks of the 10.2% of unemployed. the people who are among the ranks of the 34% of minority teenagers and young adults who are unemployed. those children, one in five children in america in poverty, one of three african-american children in poverty today in america, below the poverty line. we can do something about it and the time to do something about it is now. we cannot sit idly by while our fellow americans are in an economic malaise. we've got to have ideas that are bold and visionary. we've got to have ideas that are designed to work. and we've got to remember what has worked in the past and we can't be afraid to reach for what can work now.

the fact is, is that we're asking americans, mr. speaker, to step forward and support a real jobs package, one that will work, one that's new and innovative for green jobs, one that preserves or improves infrastructure and one that puts people to work and keeps states and local governments from having to lay off public employees. these programs will work. we need to do something for small businesses, who are often the biggest job generators of all. we need to do it now. so with that, mr. speaker, i just want to say that this has been another hour of the progressive message -- another hour of the progressive caucus. our email is cpc.grijalva

.house.gov. we want to hear from the public, mr. speaker. we want to know what's on the public's mind and we want to know how people are feeling. we want to remind people of the importance of the dignity of work and the obligation and responsibility of americans who are in congress to do something about this dismal job picture out there. i want to let the people know, mr. speaker, that we hear them. i want them to know we haven't forgotten them. and i want to let them know we're here to do something about the very difficult circumstances the people are facing. so, this will conclude the progressives' hour and the progressive message and we'll see you next week. happy holidays and enjoy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the

gentleman from oregon, mr. walton is recognized for 60 minutes. as the designee of the minority leader. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. speaker, i appreciate that and ask that my -- that i may revise and extend my remarks as necessary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walden: republicans come to you today to talk about some of the same things my colleague who just finished was talking about. we're going to try to liven it up a little bit because you see, democrats have controlled the congress for the last three year, not the last 10 months or 11 month but the last three years. but in the last 11 months, americans have lost 2.9 million jobs. you see, they passed this so-called stimulus and they rammed it through in record

time. it's one of those, you know, 1,000-page bills that probably nobody had a chance to read before it got societied on, and then they passed it. the theory was if they passed it into law that unemployment wouldn't top out over 8%. that was their promise. that's what the democrats promised, that -- pass the stimulus and unemployment, we'll solve it. it'll be no more than 8%. that's what their department of labor, the obama department of labor said right here, obama forecast with stimulus, right here is where unemployment would be. this is without the stimulus. where unemployment would be at this point, these were their number, this is what they promised the american people, this is what they said, now let's look at what really happened, however. unemployment started out here in january of this year, 2009. whoa. up it goes. how high, nobody knows, but it goes on up and up and up over

10%. over 10%. now, who's benefiting from that? well, let's first of all look at "the washington post" today, and right here on "the washington post" newspaper in the nation's capital. the top story is stimulus is boom for fellow contractors. firms help spend the money. and let me read the story here. as struggling communities throughout the country wait for more help from the $787 billion stimulus package, one region is already basking in largess. the government contractor nexus that is metropolitan washington, d.c. that's right. come on down. you are the winner, washington, d.c., once again, the federal government is the winner. reports from stimulus recipients show that a sizeable sum have gone to federal

contractors in the washington area who are helping implement the initiative. in fact, they are paying a hefty slice of the money to help spend the rest of it. now, if you want jobs for washington, d.c.--based government contractors, i don't know how that is sustainable. the red line is not getting lower. it's getting higher. we would have been better off under the president's proposal, the democrat's plan on the stimulus to have no stimulus at all. if they look at what they predicted versus what reality is. if you want to talk about healthy rural areas is, one of the people that's been involved in the government here tells the "post," the reason this money is being spent back here in the washington, d.c., area is i'm not sure if i've heard of a government contract supporter in washington. well, maybe that's part of the problem.

maybe if we had some of this actually flowing out to people who need the help and not government maybe things would be better. so where is the money going and where are the jobs? now, we know that on february 25 in an interview with abc's "good morning america" robin roberts, joe biden said, and i quote, we got to make sure this is done by the numbers, man. we have to make sure people know where the money is going. this cannot be squandered. we have an opportunity to get the nation back to work and back on its feet and the first piece of that is generating some economic growth here. we have to do it right. now, that was february 25. now, again, here's where they said we'd be without the stimulus. here's where they said we'd be with the stimulus. here's where we are. here's where we are.

and my colleague who spoke earlier about the horrible problem of unemployment, and it is. my home state of oregon has suffered mightily. but this stimulus hasn't produced jobs out there. it may have produced them to contractors back here, but not out there. so where are the jobs and where's the money going? we were promised, the american taxpayers, when we borrowed all this money from china we were promised that we'd know. by golly this is going to be accounted for. everybody's going to know. everybody's going to know. in fact, in a speech on the stimulus at the brookings institute on september 3 of this year, the vice president, joe biden, said, and i quote, everybody has to account for the money they got beginning october 1. it's going to go up on a big old website. we have a new modern website that's going to blow you away in terms of how detailed it is. so here's the vice president says first of all that we got

to make sure this is done by the numbers, man. we got to make sure people know where the money is going. this can't be squandered. we have an opportunity to get the nation back to work and on its feet and the first piece of that is generating some economic growth here and we have to do it right. and then he said we are going to track it all. we have a new modern website that's going to blow you away. everybody has to account for the money they got beginning october 1. it's going to go up on a big old website. we have a new modern website that's going to blow you away in terms of how detailed it is. well, here's a guy who knows what happens with federal money. we all know this guy. you've seen him on tv. he says, "free government money, buy my book. get the free government money." you think even lesko could track where the money goes.

so let's look at what happened to some of the money. because i think americans are asking, "where's all this money going?" $787 billion. where did the money go? so let's see, in louisiana "the new orleans times-pick uni" newspaper says louisiana has seven congressional districts. so louisiana's visiting recovery.gov, that's the website the vice president said would blow you away with the details, would find themselves not skeptical but truly puzzled that it is headed to louisiana's eighth congressional district. $2.8 million to the 22nd district. $1.8 million to the 12th district. and lesser money to the 14th, 32nd, and even the dubleo district.

now, let me go back. the 26th district, the 45th district, the 14th, the 42nd, the double o. there are 17 congressional districts in louisiana. and the website that the vice president said would really blow us away, list all these grants, this money is going to districts that don't even exist. so "the times-picayune," this is the fancy website that joe biden would blow us all away -- and boy it has -- the communications director for this fancy new website that's going to detail everything, how will this work? this is the great accountability model of transparency of the democrats. he said, we rely on self-reporting from recipients for the federal money. it is transferred to recovery.gov and no one -- get this -- no one checks to verify

its accuracy or to take note to the fact that utah -- here's another example -- really doesn't have seven congressional districts. utah has three congressional districts. south dakota, well, they had a 10th congressional district of south dakota. see, folks, south dakota has one congressional district. louisiana doesn't have 15 congressional districts. it has seven. so even lesco here could know. we get back here on some examples of some of that free money quote-unquote that went out. in my home state of oregon, we have actually five -- count them on one hand here -- five congressional districts. that's one, two, three, four, five. and yet on this fancy new website that's supposed to track all this, news media organizations said, wait a minute, there isn't a 00 district in oregon or a 14th or

60th. and this is transparency and accountability in a record amount of money that's being spent? now, frankly, being an oregonian and having five sdricks, i kind of like the notion that we are going to add congressional districts. even the people that live there, that gives us -- gets us cloudier in the congress and that's ok with me. you are talking about taxpayers' money here and it's not creating jobs. now, they went on to say that we are not certifying the accuracy of the information. so you have the vice president who is telling us, man, this website is going to blow you away, we got to make sure people know where the money's going, everybody has to be accountable. this is accountability? oh, and by the way, these are the folks -- this is the same government that's going to take over your health care and take over energy production and they

can't even manage a guest list for a dinner party at the white house. this is what we're getting, folks, with too much government. we know what the problem is, according to pound, and we are trying to fix it. ask why recipients would pluck random numbers like 26, 45 or 14 to fill in for their congressional district, the director of communications replied, who knows, man? who really knows? that was his answer. there are 130,000 reports out there, he said. ok. so we have an issue with reporting. now, let's go back to our friend, lesco, because everybody knows him. anybody that watches tv, you see lesco show up and says, where's the government money? get my c.d. buy it and you can get government money. well, talladega county in alabama, now, here they reported that they saved or created -- this is frugal now

-- 5,000 jobs from only $42,000 in stimulus money. now, as a journalism major, not a math major, but 5,000 jobs from $42,000, that's $8.40 a job. this is a record. no. but wait, it gets better. the belmonts metropolitan housing authority in ohio reporting 1,020 jobs saved or created from $1.3 million from h.u.d. that's $80.46 per job. but the winner, the winner -- the lesco wib winner for efficiency goes to sheldon state university college in alabama, 14,500 jobs saved or created with $27,000 from the g.a.o. that's $1.86 per job. now, that's a bargain. builders of arkansas reported 3,000 jobs from $11 million.

$1,366 a job. it's not even being reported accurately. and yet we're saddling our kids with this enormous debt. so let's look at a few other examples. the earl e. devainy, the top monitor of the stimulus in the ballparks, quote, acknowledged that he, too, found dubious the 640,000 jobs figured touted by the obama administration proof that the stimulus was working and there were too many errors to accurately offer that estimate. now, he's the one who actually is the watchdog and that's what he told "the new york times." now, how many americans does it take to fill in a $890 shoe order? on the recovery.gov site an $890 shoe order for the army corps of engineers created nine

new jobs at moore shoes and servicing in kentucky. really? head start in augusta, georgia. they claimed they created 317 job with a $790,000 grant. now, i happen to be a supporter of head start but it's this reporting issue and whether you are creating sustainable jobs. actually, the money went to pay for pay hikes for workers. that would be a bonus. so republicans stand up here and we hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, you know, we need a new jobs summit. we need an economic stimulus. we need an economic stimulus ii because we got to get back to work and lord knows we do. but that's what they said the last time and they've been in charge for three years around these halls. and we've never had greater debt, more government takeover and more to come, and record unemployment.

there is a 10.2% unemployment. it hasn't gone down since they enacted their proposal. it's gone up, up, up, up. and americans are paying the price. and our kids and grandkids are going to pay the price on debt. now, how about that alabama housing authority claim of 5400, 700 dollar grant would create 7,280? that's what they reported, 7,280. they created 14 at best. 14 at best. now, you go back to these congressional districts that have been identified here that don't exist. you remember back to the new deal when president roosevelt wanted to increase the supreme court from seven to nine members so that he could -- so that he could get a majority? well, it appears this administration takes it one step further, forgetting to add the two more justices, let's just add 25 districts.

maybe make it 50 new congressional districts because that's what you'd think happen here when this is your reporting. far from accountable. and this is big stuff. we make a little light of this today perhaps but this is big stuff because this is debt. this isn't like you have money in your checking account to spend. this is like you went to the bank and borrowed this money and shoved it out the door in record time and you don't even know where it went. you don't even know where it went. i suppose he's going to come out with a new d.v.d. soon that says, ask the government for free money and i'll tell you where it went. i've found it. it's gone. i mean, i just -- i just don't know -- and then the next stimulus bill, are we going to create like whole new states? maybe that's what we should do. when we're done creating new congressional districts, we should get new states. if you like massachusetts, how about new massachusetts? minnesota, how about south

minnesota or north minnesota, east minnesota? . six little mini al frankens going on in districts that don't exist and create 100,000 new jobs, who could find the voters who say we didn't? they'd love it in duluth. they say, thanks for the jobs. this is crazy, this is just kay sy where it's going. i see i've been joined by my friend and colleague from ohio, mr. latourette. this is a report that came out in a newspaper here, the "examiner," inflated jobs by state. it shows drainage ditch number one, i don't know what all these are, but it shows these inflailted job numbers. i would yield to my colleague, mr. latourette from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank my

friend for yielding. most people will recognize the united states of america. each of the push pins represents an area where the administration has reported jobs being created or saved and it's kind of interesting, saved is a tough thing to analyze. i'm going to talk about that in just a second, but created or saved. each of those push pins represents either a fictional place that didn't exist, as the gentleman was talking about, or where the jobs that are claimed on recovery.gov were in fact not created or saved. i just want to digress if you'll let me for a second, though. the gentleman has pointed out that in 2006, the republican majority had done such a bang-up job it was replaced by a new democratic majority. it became historic in that we had the first woman speaker in the history of the country, ms. pelosi, so for three years, they have been basically

directing how the legislative process in the house of representatives works or doesn't work. and we have been saying on our side of the aisle for a pretty long time now, when we go back, when i go back to ohioen, and when the gentleman goes back to oregon, people say, where are the jobs? why don't we have any jobs? you gave $700 billion to the banks to lend money, they're not lending money. you created and passed a -- an almost $800 billion stimulus bill to create jobs and there aren't any jobs. and i think that they rightly ask, what is it that the congress this democratic majority, has been doing with themselves to help stimulate the economy and create jobs? i have a chart here that i like to use and i want to be fair to them they do have a rejoinder, at the beginning of this year,

you had democrats in the majority in the house, the democrats in the majority in the senate, and president barack obama was inaugurated on january 20. this shes just through march of this year how the unemployment rate has increased and the gentleman will recall that we were told we had to pass this $800 billion stimulus bill or else unemployment will hit 8%, now it's over 10%. if you look at construction trades, it's 18%. 18% of people who work construction in this country are currently out of work. but just taking what -- we'll get to the stimulus bill and the president's participation in a minute, but just what our democratic colleagues have been thinking, as have been the most important issues facing the country, as this unemployment rate now has spiked 10% on the opening day of this congress, which was -- which was january

6, kind of a modest unemployment rate out here on january 20, you have unemployment is increasing. then you get out here to -- toward the end of january, beginning of february, and -- thank you very much. again, when americans by the thousands and tens of thousands are losing their jobs, the most important thing the majority here in the house could put on the floor was a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national teen dating. now -- >> say that again? mr. latourette: national teen dating. when people are losing their jobs in steel mills and auto manufacturing plants this house of representatives is talking about the importance of teen dating. i'm the father of some teenager, i want teen dating to go smoothly but more importantly, i really want the people i represent to have jobs so their teenagers can afford to go to school and buy things

and eat food and things like that. unemployment continued to spike and now we get in the middle of february, the president has been installed only for a month and so we certainly can't criticize him at this moment in time. but again, as unemployment rises, the most important thing that this majority could bring to the floor, and people have to recognize bills only come to the floor when the majority say they come to the floor so what we did on that day was commend sam bradford for winning the heisman trophy. again, just like teen dating, i'm sure the bradford family is proud of sam, i think it's quite an accomplishment to win the heisman trophy, but tens of thousands of people are losing jobs. now we get out toward the end of february. people continue to lose their jobs, every jobs report that comes out, it's hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced and out of work. so surely at this moment in time, with complete control of the government, you would think

we'd be doing a jobs bill. but the most important thing they could come up with was the monkey safety act, to debate the monkey safety act here in the house of representatives. >> that sounds like real monkey business. mr. latourette: i'm not saying that this is a bad piece of legislation but what i'm saying is, for crying out loud, when people want to know where the jobs are, why are we debating the monkey safety act. you get into march, hundreds of thousands of people out of work, you would say surely, we're going to talk about a jobs piece of legislation in the house of representatives. but when we get into march, the most important thing they could come up with was the shark conservation act. i like sharks, i don't like to swim with sharks, but they're nice to watch on television. but again where are the jobs and the legislation. then we get out to this -- this chart ends at the end of march.

i'm working on a new one to take us to where we are today but you get out, bad jobs report, tens of thousands of more people have lost their job, the most important thing the majority leader could put on the floor is supporting pi. supporting pi day. >> apple pie or cherry? >> not p-i-e. i enjoy pie. this is pi, the math formula, 3.14. whatever it is. we needed to recognize the importance of that rather than dealing with the people who are out of work in the country. to be fair to the majority, they will say, that's not all we did. we also passed a stimulus bill and the stimulus bill, just south of $800 billion, and it was advertised as creating three million new jobs across the country. it's been many place for about nine, 10 months and my constituents, at least, are

continuing to ask, where are the jobs? and i think the gentleman has correctly pointed out that not only have the jobs not materialized because they have not gone to job creating activities, instead, and on top of that, they continue to issue press releases, taking credit for jobs saved or created. i can just tell the gentleman in my district, here's under the heading of press releases i would never send out, i represent the 14th district of ohio, the white house sent out a press release saying they had spent $100 million in the 14th district of ohio of stimulus money to create or save jobs. i guess i'd is ask the gentleman so that sounds like a lot of money. it is a lot of money. it's borrowed money, as the gentleman says. in the next sentence, they tell the -- they tell how many jobs they created or saved. does the gentleman want to guess? >> you could write a million

dollar check and make 100 millionaires out of that. so maybe 1,000. mr. latourette: it was 120. maybe everybody could have made $800,000. i go back to the district, nobody knows where the jobs are. i think the gentleman has talked about not only the difficulty of false claims of jobs, but jobs that have gone to places that don't exist. in ohio, the gentleman has talked about oregon, in ohio, there was a $7,960, not billions but still a lot of money if you're paying taxes, for a basketball system replacement in ohio and they claimed that as a result of that, it created three jobs. that's better than the $100 million, that's only a cup oral

$3,000 a job. the problem, it was a grant to repair a basketball court in a park in cincinnati, ohio. but it was identified as ohio's zero district. now we have -- mr. walden: we had one of those in oregon. it was actually double-ought. -- double-aught. mr. latourette: i'm sure the gentleman running in ohio's zero is going to have trouble, they won't know where it is. mr. walden: they can go to recovery.gov, they'll know where it is, by then it will be well-jobbed. mr. latourette: down in texas, this fellow who runs a housing authority, got $100,000.

it -- got $26,000. it said they created these jobs. they contacted this fellow, he said, that's great. you did a great job with that $ 26 grand, creating 400 jobs. he said, no, no, no. he said he had created sick jobs, five roofers and a fellow who inspected. when he was asked to do some reporting, they said, well that's not enough jobs. so the 450 doesn't represent jobs. it represents the hours that these six people worked to replace the roof. so we really didn't get a whole lot for that $26,000. mr. walden: even if it's six job, how long did they last? mr. latourette: it was 450 hour, all six of them.

it's a couple of weeks work. mr. walden: it's not a permanent, sustainable job, then. mr. walden: i'm sure with the rainy season come, they're nice and dry there in texas, but they put a roof on and now i suppose these people are unemployed or fixing roofs somewhere else. so clearly this is a problem. mr. walden: the university of massachusetts got a grant for $95,000 to study pollen samples from the viking era in iceland. now, i'm not making this up. it's there. you can find it. $95,000. the university of massachusetts to study pollen samples from the viking era. you want to study pollen from the viking era, just have brett favre sneeze. that's an old viking. we cab do that, save the $95,000. maybe this will make a good

1:30 in the morning discovery or science channel program. we investigated old pollen from iceland and created jobs. we have been joined by mr. scalise of louisiana. glad to have you join us here today and share your comments. we may go back and forth with our colleague from ohio. mr. scalise: i want to thank my friend that are talking about this important subject because you know when i go home, people want to know the same things you've been talking about. they want to know where the jobs -- where are the jobs. they don't want the government getting involved in all these areas of our lives the government doesn't belong and more importantly they don't want the government going off on these wild spending sprees, spending money we don't have. so they look at the record of this administration since president obama came in in january and they recognize that right after president obama came in, he has this great idea he was going to have a stimulus bill and he said, we're going to make sure unemployment

doesn't go other 8%. the chart that you show that shows the lofty goal the lofty promises, and in fact, those of us who actually want to fix the real problem, want to solve the problems in our country, we met with the president. we said, we've got some ideas of how to create jobs because we agree, we should be focusing on our economy, should be focusing on creating jobs. we laid out a recovery plan the congressional budget office said would create way more jobs than they projected to score and a whole lot less money than they were projecting to spend. of course the president discarded our ideas. went around the country telling people we were the party of no, failed to mention that we actually had a solid plan that is still solid today, he put his blinders on and said, we don't want republican we want to go on a wild spending spree. unfortunately, the president got his way. speaker pe he see rammed the bill through the house. harry reid rammed it through the senate. they spent $787 billion of our

children and grandchildren's money, money we don't have, claiming we need to do this because this is going to stop unemployment from reaching 8% and it was going to create three million job, and then he said he stood right behind you here on this house floor, right at that podium i'm looking at right there, president obama said, we're going to track every dame and vice president joe biden will be in charge of tracking every dime because nobody messes with joe. that's what the president says. nobody. so, of course we decided to take president obama up on his claims months and months later after they came with budge that doubled the national debt in five years and turned around with another bill, the cap and trade energy tax and national tax on energy, then they came back with this government takeover of health care they're still pursuing, all of this, running jobs out of our country at a time when americans want us to be creating jobs.

now that unemployment has exceeded 10%, people are not only asking, where are the job, they say, what did you do with the money you spent? what we found out is, as you were talking about we found out that in louisiana, there were more jobs created in louisiana's eighth congressional district, according to the white house, by the stimulus bill than were created in my first congressional district i represent. if you lived in the eighth congressional district and you're hearing all these jobs were created with taxpayer money we don't have, you might be going, wow, i want to see what those jobs were. people in louisiana know there's no eighth congressional district because we have seven congressional district, so we dug deeper and found out there were 15 different congressional districts in louisiana they were claiming they created jobs in using stimulus money. mr. walden: so do you think someone made a joke? mr. scalise: in fact, our local newspaper did digging and they called the white house and

said, ok, white house, you're claiming off -- you have all this transparency, how is it you can have jobs being shown that you are creating in districts that don't exist? and the first thing the white house said is we're not certifying the accuracy of the information. so first in january they were going to be the most transparent administration ever. now, 10 months later billions and billions of dollars of borrowed money going out the door, no one knows what it was spent on in districts that don't exist and they are saying we are not certifying the accuracy of the information. mr. scalise: i thought nobody was going to get -- mr. walden: i thought nobody was going to get past joe? mr. scalise: well, they say, how is it that somebody can show a district that doesn't exist on your website as creating jobs? and the white house spokesperson's answer was, who knows, man, who really knows?

that's his direct quote. that's the best the white house can come up with as the american people are saying, where's the jobs and what are y'all doing with this money and their answer is, who knows, man, who really knows. and then we go to president obama. february 24 on the house floor, his quote, because nobody messes with joe. and here we have a picture of vice president joe biden with these two folks that crashed the white house state dinner just a week or so ago. and you wonder why nobody is manning the story, no one is taking accountability now, these are people manning the store and people are saying enough is enough. this is not a joke because the joke is on us and it's money that we are borrowing from china and our children and grandchildren and we're tired of it. we are going to continue to try to create jobs. this shows you what's going on with the taxpayers' money. and i yield back. mr. walden: and i yield to my friend from ohio before i do

that. maybe this one didn't go past joe. i don't know. it says here "the sacramento bee" reported $25,000 of stimulus money, quote-unquote, to provide five free concerts in the sacramento area. i have an i phone. i have headphones. but here's one of the programs. it is the kitchen review. now, you gentlemen i know are students of philharmonic. the kitchen review where audiences can imagine, and i quote, the life of a pot, a broom and a dish rag. $25,000 so that you can imagine . this reminds me of the johnny carson act, what do a pot, a lid, a broom and dish rag have in common? this is insane.

now, the executive director did say the money would give 10 of his musicians a good long week of work. now, i don't know about you guys, when i hear jobs being created -- i was a small business owner for 22 years. small company. i know whats like signing a payroll check. i expected it to last more than one week. most of us, i think, see these numbers and think oh, they created a million new jobs or whatever they're claiming, 640,000 jobs and it was a roofing project that lasts two weeks. it was the life of a pot, a lid, a broom and a dish rag concert in sacramento for free, quote-unquote, that gave a long week of work. that is not going to bring economic recovery. i yield to the gentleman from oregon. mr. latourette: i don't think that's what the message is.

the gentleman laid it out very well. we don't claim the best ideas. in the house we represent about 47% of the american people. and as you move forward with, you know, sort of going in a bad movie "stimulus 2" or "stimulus 3" about to rear its ugly heads around here, we -- the gentleman is a former business owner. to say, hey, i have an idea how to create a job. i think if they were receptive to that you would have -- you wouldn't have to report phony stuff, and people wouldn't be asking where the jobs are because, you know, the gentleman mentioned the health care debate. well, one way to make sure that health care is less of a problem in this country is to have people working with health care, with retirement, security. one way to solve the problem with the foreclosure crisis in this country is to have people working so that they can pay their mortgages and the insurance on their -- and raise

their families. but these two quick examples again, about -- i don't understand why they're bragging about this stuff. the government claims to have spent $1,047 to buy a riding mohr from the toro company to cut the grass at the fayetteville national cemetery. i'm all for cutting the grass at the fayetteville national stem tear but the website claims that the purchase of that single lawnmower helped save or create 50 jobs. mr. walden: a single lawnmower. maybe it's a push mohr. -- push mower. mr. latourette: you have a lot of shift work going on in fayetteville. mr. walden: how many people does it take to push a lawnmower? mr. latourette: it was a riding lawnmower. so -- anyway, and then to connecticut, and i think, again, what our constituents ask us to do is the police department up in plymouth,

connecticut, received a grant, and they used it to buy new computers. again, law enforcement needs the best tools available to catch the bad guys. but the administration is saying that the purchase of these computers created 108 jobs. a couple problems with that. there's only 22 people that work at the police department. and when they called the mayor -- they called the mayor up in plymouth and say, why are you guys reporting 108 jobs with some computers? and he said, i can't tell you. his name is vincent festa. he said -- and this is what our constituents wants us to do. he said the town has counting paper clips to save money. he couldn't explain the police report and the town's police chief unlike the mayor didn't return telephone calls seeking comments. so, again, we need to be

included as we find out not only how we can help assist the economy recover, creating jobs, but we need to do what the mayor, mayor festa is doing in plymouth, connecticut, counting paper clips rather than buying a bunch of new paper clips. mr. walden: and then ask lesko where the free money went. how about this one, west virginia requested $380,350 from the so-called to hire two state coordinators and an assistant to encourage private landowners to grow genseng and she tacky mushrooms? i don't have -- shitacki mushrooms? i don't have a problem with that. they hope to contact -- are you ready? 160 landowners. that works out to $2,377 per

contact to reach out to 160 farmers, forest landowners and say, hey, you guys want to grow these out there under the trees? i mean, this is your federal tax money. $380,350 for west virginia to go -- i mean, i thought with all the paving that goes on there -- anyway, we won't go there. mr. latourette: maybe they don't have phones in west virginia and they can't call. mr. walden: can't call. send them a letter. mr. latourette: no. mr. walden: come on. $380,000. $4 million for a new bike path trail in massachusetts so people can get to the north hampton taco bell. you think i'm making this stuff up. so there is a new slogan, bike to the border. if you like bike to the border. we know they are going to make it a crime to eat a burrito and ride a bike.

forget the cheese if it's not from a free range dairy cow. this is $4 million for a bike path to the taco bell. come on. mr. latourette: you guys talked about the other stuff that's going on at the same time the economy continues to tank and people continues to lose their job, they continue to pile on. this health care discussion we had in the house, one provision says at taco bell, at every vending machine and every location you are going to have to have a sign next to it says not only what the thing is made of but whether it's good or not. i am not a healthy eater as you can tell -- mr. walden: you are a healthy eater. mr. latourette: i have a healthy appetite. it's going to cost a lot of money obviously for not only the consumer because these signs are not going to come free but also for the people that make all this stuff.

anyone that thinks this compliance cost is not going to add on -- how do you deal with that, you either add to the cost or let people go. anyone that goes to a vending machine and sees a tweenkie filled with that luscious cream, anybody that thinks that's good for you probably shouldn't be out and about without adult supervision during the course of the day. mr. walden: or actually stand at the vending machine with the line-up of tweenkies and you are going to read the ingredient list and calorie list and that's going to dissuede you from the tweenkie that you found the vending machine to get. mr. latourette: and we had the cap and trade bill. i come from lake erie. we believe in clean water. the fact is there was a huge national carbon tax. again, when you have an economy that's ailing and people losing

their jobs, imposing more taxes on them, the places they work is not the answer. but -- so you sort of have this double whammy going on here. you have no help for the people that lost their jobs and at the same token you have more policies to create more job displacements. mr. walden: and we go to the gentleman from louisiana. this government, the democrats have run the house for the last three years, the congress holds the purse strings, the congress does, the president can put forward a budget and they end up signing the bills into law, it's the congress that controls the purse strings. under this administration, the federal government ran the deficit in excess of $600 billion every single year for the next 10 years. now, the highest deficit, highest deficit prior to this administration was $459 billion which was high. but it was coming down. but it was coming down. now, it's $700 billion and