carbon tax to cap and trade to try an confuse people, but, you know, i think it's just a natural order of things. host: democrats line, daniel from birdtown, tennessee. hi, daniel. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was reminded of a simple fact that occurred last year by my bother in law that runs a machine shop in muncie, indiana with about ten employees who is always trying to deal with the china trade policies and inequities there. he reminded me of the olympics where last year where they did not shut down hundreds of factories in about a 50 mile wraid radius around beijing to clear the air so that you could actually see some of the buildings, and they, you know, they put this measure, losing millions if not a billion dollars in commerce during that

month or two preceding the olympics. duh, america? duh? thank you. host: thanks for your calls today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. we'll go now to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . [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: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord, our god, throughout the ages of holy scripture, your promise that you have made promises to your people, and your divine promises will always fulfill in due time. be with your people today. realize that in our day the hopes of compassion, peace and justice are -- you have placed within our hearts. but not upon our since, lord, unless it is to forgive and set us free. fulfill in us your word of salvation both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the

last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from montana, congressman rehberg. mr. rehberg: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one minutes on each side of the aisle. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. kucinich: today, i will begin circulating two privileged resolutions which will trigger debate on a -- and votes on a timely withdrawal of our troops from afghanistan and pakistan. article 1, section 8 of the u.s. constitution makes it

congress' responsibility to determine whether or not we go to war or stay at war. consistent with article 1, section 8, the privileged resolution will invoke the war powers act of 1973. i ask for your support of these resolutions which will be introduced in the house in january. yesterday, with the secretary of defense at his side, the president of afghanistan declared that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the u.s. for the next 15 to 20 years. we cannot afford these wars. we cannot afford the loss of lives. we cannot afford the cost of taxpayers. we cannot afford to fail to exercise our constitutional right to end the wars. please sign on to the privileged resolution to end the wars and bring our troops home. stand up for the troops. stand up for the troops. stand up for the constitution and congress' responsibility. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina

rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, american taxpayers deserve stimulus funds. taxpayers could face weeks of fake jobs and districts posted on recovery.gov. we have heard the government accountability office office that one in 10 jobs are fake. actions must be taken. i have introduced the national commission on the american recovery and reen investment act to create a bipartisan commission to determine how many jobs have been saved or created by the recovery act a. they will look at the circumstances in which these jobs have been saved or created. the commission will make recommendations on what works to save or create more jobs and what steps can be made to prevent the improper spending of taxpayer dollars, such as the hills front page disclosure today of a pollster receiving $6 million to preserve three

jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, one of the more divisive issues in our health care reform debate has been how to treat insurance coverage of abortions. everyone agrees our goal is to preserve the status quo. yesterday, our colleagues in the senate did exactly that by tabling the nelson amendment modeled after the stupak amendment which would have severely restricted a woman's access to reproductive health care services. the status quo means no federal funding for abortion other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment of the woman. the status quo means entities that receive federal funds may use their own funds. an example of this are the churches which receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funds every year to provide social services. but must segregate those funds

from other funds used to pay -- engage in religious activity. similarly, the amendment i passed in the energy and commerce committee, along with the current senate language, maintains the same principle without eroding a woman's legitimate access to a legal, medical procedure. i urge my colleagues to reject inclusion of the harmful stupak language in any final version of the health reform status legislation, maintain the senate language. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, president obama is shifting our strategy to fight terrorists. from marlte model to a legal crime enforcement model. case in point, three ranked navy seals were arraigned on charges of punching after he killed and mutilated four americans in iraq. a punch to the gut has led to the prosecution of three of our most highly dedicated and highly trained servicemen.

al qaeda mass many weapons and tactics to harm our troops. among them the weapon of our own judicial system and the tactic of claiming abuse by our soldiers. the seals tried to capture him when it may have been easier to kill him from a missile fired by a drone. they brought him in so that valuable intelligence could be gathered. why would they do that when they too could be prosecuted based on the word of the terrorist? the obama administration is taking us down a slippery slope and impeds our ability to fight an enemy that shows no regard for innocent lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. chu: last night the senate stood up for women. they rejected an amendment that would have hurt women all across this nation. though we won the battle the fight is not over. we must oppose the stupak

language in the final health care bill. it was on this house floor that we passed the historic health care vote, but there is one moment that night that i'll never forget. i'll never forget looking up at the vote board and see that our house voted for the biggest rollback of women's reproductive rights in decades. my heart sank. 30 years later -- 30 years ago i went to fight for women's right. with the stupak amendment, it was not a compromise. women will lose benefits. plans will not offer abortion coverage. women will be forced to buy an extra right for abortion ahead of time. and what woman plans to have an abortion? let's not make women the sack rirble lamb of health care reform. let's pass health care reform that benefits all americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and

extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a constituent statement by judy brady of texas, district 31, on health care reform. i received this and i wanted to read it to the rest of the congress. you tell us that the government needs to control health care because the government can administer programs more cheaply and fairly than the private system. of course, recent studies show that nearly 10% of all medicare payments are fraudulent. why should we believe that government can do a better job with the entire nation's health care system than it already does with medicare? we ask you to leave health care in the hands of doctors and patients and that you help drive down the cost of insurance so that more of us can be covered. give us nationwide competition between insurance -- private insurers, allow us tax deductions for insurance we purchase and promote tort reform. don't force us into a government system that will

cost us more and cover us less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? mrs. dahlkemper: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, last year we saw the near collapse of our financial system. the united states lost an estimated $8.3 trillion of wealth in 2008. right now more than 15 million americans are unemployed and looking for work. families and businesses continue to struggle as our economy slowly recovers. we must ensure that this never happens again. hardworking americans on main street have been the victim of wall street excess and greed and also of washington's failure to hold investors accountable. our constituents, the american people deserve better. the wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2009 will bring in risky behavior on wall street and create powerful protections for middle-class families.

i urge my colleagues to stand up for middle-class families and protect their financial future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: this year for christmas my wife jan and i took out three loans for our three children. $40,000 each. of course, as my youngest daughter is old enough to get a loan -- then with the $120,000 in new-found credit, jan and i went on a spending spree leaving our children to repay $40,000 each. great, huh? of course, this story is literally isn't true. no parent would saddle their children with $40,000 in debt. the estimated share of the national debt is $40,000 per american, man, woman and child. and that debt is just as real. that's why i've co-sponsored a resolution to require any increase in the statutory debt limit be considered as a

stand-alone bill and passed by a supermajority of congress. if we're not going to cut up the government's credit card, then let's make it harder to get new cards when we max the others out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. braley: mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate dr. jim young on his impact on the health care reform debate. earlier this year, jim gave me a copy of the book "overtreated" by shannon brownlee. it opened my eyes to the shortcomings of our current reimbursement model of fee for services model and the need to go to a health care delivery system that rewards high-quality, low-cost patient outcomes. after months of negotiations, i'm proud we were able to secure language in the house bill to finally achieve a quality based reimbursement model. jim has been practicing family medicine in iowa since 1973 following his service in the

united states navy. he's a valuable advisor and friend and his insights and inspiration helped improve the house health care reform bill to better service all americans. his spirit and his example shows what one person can do to change the course of history. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> request to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . >> mr. olman, 88 years old, was a pilot and flight theered in the famed thunder bums fighter squadron guring world war ii, flying combat missions over europe in p-47 thunder bolts. he flew over 100 combat missions in world war ii. he was awarded the distinguished flying cross for his, and i quote from the award

record, extraordinary leadership and superior flying ability. on september 3, 1944 in belgium, then lieutenant olman led his wing man in a run on enemy positions. his aircraft received several direct hits but he nevertheless continued the attack until out of ammunition. due to the chaos and confusion prevalent during war, he never actually received the medal. rectifying that oversight last month was a great honor for me. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i join my colleagues today to show opposition to the stupak-pitts amendment and its new limitations on women's reproductive rights. the house bill already had language that reflects current

law, prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortion, while allowing women to use their own money to buy the coverage that they need. the stupak-pitts amendment goes beyond the hyde amendment. it sets new precedent for restricting women's rights and eliminating coverage for an important and legal health service that millions of women currently have. that's why i will join with my colleagues to vote against any final health reform bill if it contains the stupak-pitts amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i just returned from a trip to afghanistan to assess the conditions on the ground. i want to update my colleagues on what i saw. first of all, our u.s. military leadership has expressed

confidence in our ability to achieve victory and they need the additional troops promised by president obama. the billinger problem -- bigger problem lies with afghanistan itself. president karzai must do the following to ensure success in afghanistan. and the corruption, provide credible afghan security forces, eliminate the illicit drug production, and grow the afghan economy. these conditions are paramount to achieving victory with u.s. military departments the country. and finally, pakistan has to step up and stop serving as a safe harbor for terrorists insurgents. the morale of our troops is high and our commanders on the ground are confident that we can win if afghanistan and pakistan achieve these goals. none of these goals are easy, but they are crucial to the success of the security in afghanistan. thanks, mr. speaker.

i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. schakowsky: mr. speaker, i rise on behalf of my constituents who called, faxed, emailed me in strong opposition to the stupak-pitts language and its inclusion in health care reform. the grand myth in this debate is that the stupak amendment is simply an extension of current law which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in the case of rape or incest or to protect the life of a mother. it is not current law, it would be the largest restriction on abortion access since roe vs. wade, preventing women from using private dollars to purchase coverage for a legal medical service. a recent george washington school of public health study warns that the stupak language will reduce access to women who already have it by encouraging

insurers to, quote, drop coverage in all markets, unquote. that is not the status quo. the stupak-pitts language is unfair, unnecessary, and unrise. the senate rightly rejected it last night. it cannot be part of health care reform. women will not be forced back to back alleys. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this week debate continues in the senate over a massive health care overhaul. what's at stake for seniors? many seniors will probably see their benefits cut or higher premiums. the senate bill cuts more than $135 billion from hospitals serving seniors. it cuts $40 billion from home health agencies, $15 billion from nursing hosmse, and nearly $8 billion from hospices. all important services our seniors depend on. seniors deserve to know how

washington democrats are going to pay for their massive new government-run bureaucracy because cuts like these will affect their care. as a heart surgeon, i know that we can do better. we need to work together to strengthen medicare, putting it on a sound footing to ensure it will be there when seniors need help with their health care costs. we need to lower health care costs for seniors and all americans by increasing competition in the insurance marketplace. promoting wellness programs, and limiting frivolous lawsuits in medicine. we can accomplish these commonsense solution if we work together. let's protect seniors and medicare. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i rise and request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, while one month saw job losses does not show success, it

certainly shows we are trend trending in the right direction. this blue is since president obama took office. the red is the time under former president bush. you see back in january of 2008 we started losing jobs. here is when the presidential candidate for the republicans claimed that the fundamentals of our economy were sound. and in the last month that president bush was in office, this country lost over 740,000 jobs. the blue shows the direction under the obama administration where we are trending in the right direction. it's not success but it certainly shows we are trending in the right direction from over 700,000 jobs to 11,000 jobs. it's a tragedy for any family that has lost a job, but it does show that one election has truly made a difference in our

economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the american people deserve some answers. where are the jobs? 10 months after passing a $787 billion stimulus package, unemployment's reached 10% and thousands of workers have stayed unemployed for six months or more. unfortunately, the democrats still think throwing money at the struggling economy will fix it. albert einstein once said, quote, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. the first stimulus didn't work. the new stimulus would only increase the already massive deficit and provide a temporary fix. higher taxes and higher

spending is not the formula for economic growth. what america really needs is to encourage entrepreneurial activity, help small businesses, and get the government out of our pockets. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have witnessed the horror of choice between back alley abortions and sometimes unforced marriage to try to avoid disgrace. those were the realities that women faced prior to 1973. my fear is that the harmful stupak-pitts language is signed into law we will revert back to those dark times. critical to this debate is a breakdown of the facts. the opposition says that it codifies current law, it is grossly incorrect. stupak-pitts goes far beyond current law placing unprecedented restrictions on

the individual's use of theirer own private dollars. the hyde amendment does not apply to private funding, nor does it apply to administrative costs. it has only placed limits on direct federal appropriations being used to fund abortion benefits. that brings in everyone who has insurance from their employer which is tax exempt, which means of course, a federal subsidy. the hyde amendment does not include the senate far-reaching language we see in the stupak- amendment. 17 states currently provide abortion coverage without separate funding. we must not go back to the back alley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mrs. schmidt: mr. speaker, i rise again this morning to remind this body that we must stop this run away spending in congress or we are in jeopardy of losing our triple-a credit

rating. this would greatly hurt the united states of america's credit. moody's investment services indicates the united states will lose its triple-a rating in 2013 if congress continues to put us on this fiscal train wreck of too much spending and record federal deficits. the record -- the federal devers for 2009 was $1.4 trillion tripling our record. the president's own office of management and budget estimated in august that the budget deficit would be more than $9 trillion over the next 10 years. add this to the $12 trillion in u.s. debt and we are on a track to nearly double our record. mr. speaker, we must stop the spending and stop it now. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, the president is right to go to copenhagen and lead the world

against global warming. he is right to defeat the burstors who tried to stop him from being president and the deniers who refuse to accept the fact of global warming. both the berthers and deniers efuse to accept clear pure facts. i just read that a former governor of alaska was arguing today in a newspaper that there is no such thing as global warming associated with human activity. she needs to read the national academy of science's report which concludes it is a fact. she needs to read the report of nasa, the people who put the men on the moon that concludes this is a fact. she needs to read the noaa reports about acidfication of the ocean which shows it is a fact. they are wrong. we should restore american leadership and make sure that jobs of the future are clean energy economy are here not just in china.

the president is right. the deniers are wrong yet again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. in january, president obama and congressional democrats promised spending another $1 trillion would create jobs immediately and that unemployment would not rise above 8%. almost one year later millions of americans are still plagued by unemployment and many are struggling to make ends meet. in october, 190,000 jobs were lost and more than 2.8 million jobs have been lost since the so-called stimulus was signed by president obama. the american people continue to ask where are the jobs? i can safely say the answer lies in the house republican economic recovery plan. our plan provides targeted tax relief for working families and small businesses. just as american families must improve their economic situation through fiscal discipline, so, too, must this

congress. house republicans are passionately committed to creating jobs and getting the american people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, reproductive self-determination is one of the most fundamental civil and human rights a woman can have. and this is under attack in the health care reform debate. let's be clear that the real goal of the anti-choice opposition is not to maintain the status quo, rather they want to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering coverage for an otherwise legal medical procedure. women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or pregnancies with complications. unfortunately, these do happen. it is deeply insulting to tell women that if you want to guard against these unplanned

situations, go buy additional coverage. essentially, health insurance companies today already treat being a woman as a pre-existing condition and they charge us more for it. the men of this country would rise up in protest if they faced this kind of unequal treatment based on conditions particular to their gender. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: mr. speaker, today, congress is facing one of the greatest economic challenges of our time, high unemployment rates, a challenge that must be determined to meet. when current unemployment numbers are still too high, the continued decline of job losses is a promising look. we have taken bold steps to take our nation out of

recession. we have stabilized the financial system, prevented foreclosures, extended unemployment insurance and created or saved more than one million jobs. we must now build on this progress. yesterday, the president outlined a frame of action to produce the greatest number of jobs for generating the greatest value for our economy. his priority is helping small businesses grow and hire new staff, additional investment in our roads, bridges and infrastructure to create shovel ready jobs and investment in clean energy to spur more green jobs. in order to face our unemployment crisis head on, congress must pass a comprehensive jobs recovery package. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. >> -- mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about a nonprofit research group. the report makes official what we've known all along, immigration and economic growth go hand in hand. immigrants boost productivity and create jobs. that's been true throughout our nation's history. it's been true during boom times and tough times. true yesterday, today and tomorrow. immigrants help our economy. cities with a growing proportion of foreign born workers have larger economic growth. immigrants fuel growth. in my home state of colorado, immigrant workers and business owners have added billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. the usual suspects will cry we lie with these facts but their prejudices will no longer prey on our uncertainties thanks to this report. we can all say we know better. today we can embrace comprehensive immigration reform, help our nation recover. i'd ask permission to submit to the record the executive summary of immigrants on the economy. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, for eight years president bush's administration looked the other way as wall street exploited our financial system and ignored mounting risks. this failure to regulate our markets led to wall street gambling with america's livelihood, compromised our families' futures and savings. here we go again, making the tough choices that are necessary to bring our economy back from the brink of disaster. this great nation is suffering the consequences of a period in our history. we're living beyond our means plague not only american consumers but those on wall street whose greed compelled them to take indefensible risks. our market failed us. it certainly wasn't a free market. it's beyond a minor adjustment. wall street reform is a critical step as we turn the

tide and change not only how we deal with our financial sector but also where we lay to rest eight years that marked the most fiscally irresponsible period in our nation's history. as we rebuild our economy, we must put in place commonsense rules to ensure wall street cannot jeopardize our recovery again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i rise to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delauro: i rise against the stupak amendment. it represents an overreach that denies women the right to buy abortion coverage with their own money. it will deny all but the wealthiest women access to reproductive choice. were it up to me and my colleagues on both sides of the issue, abortion would have never sfwruded in our health care debate like this. but sadly the conference of

catholic bishops had other ideas. they chose to hold comprehensive health care reform hostage to the abortion issue. they lobbied for this legislation in a manner that was unbecoming to our faith and in doing so they failed their obligation to help the poor and heal the sick. nonetheless, i'm heartened to see yesterday our colleagues in the other body rejected a similarly overreaching amendment. i hope that we will get back to a common ground approach when it returns from conference. america's women need a health care bill that ends discrimination against them, not encodes it ever further into our system of law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 955 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar

number 137. house resolution 955,resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4213, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york will be recognized for one hour. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida,

mr. diaz-balart. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks -- i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 4213, the tax extenders act of 2009. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause and 10 of rule 21 and against the -- clause 9 and 10 of rule 21 and against the rule itself. it will have one hour of debate for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule to assist american families and small businesses with needed tax relief at a time when american citizens and american small

businesses are beginning to turn the corner. the rule will allow us to bring legislation to the house floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle-class families and creating jobs for small businesses but will also do this in a deficit-neutral, fiscally responsible way. since being elected to congress, i have repeatedly voted along with my colleagues to cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. in doing so, we have upheld our pledge to the american people and have kept the promise i made to my constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentives for economic fwrothe. i know that there are many families and businesses in my district that are struggling in the current economic crisis. with rising costs of everyday items such as food, gas and health care. this legislation in the rule -- and the rule behind it provides for consideration will extend a number of critical tax relief

measures that are relied upon by middle-class families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and strengthen our economy. i'm aware we face harsh realities in addressing the current economic crisis. while these are challenging times, we simply cannot borrow ourselves out of this situation. the legislation we will consider under the rules strikes the necessary balance by continuing the tax incentives that will help families and businesses continue to improve their position. while offsetting the costs of extending these provisions by making commonsense changes to the tax treatment of compensation paid to hedge fund managers. this change applies to investment fund managers the same rule that applies to real estate agents, waitors and c.e.o. stock options. in doing so we will extend $30 billion of expiring temporary tax provisions through 2010, including the existing

deductions for tuition expenses, the research and development tax credit and the state and local property tax deduction, among others, and we will do so without increasing the deficit and without any additional borrowing. the american people understand the idea of pay-go that congress should have to balance its books just as they do. mr. speaker, the house of representatives continues to show a strong commitment to the pay-as-you-go rule adopted in january of 2007. i applaud my blue dog colleagues for their outspoken leadership on pay-go, and i am proud that the house has passed legislation that would create statutory pay-go. all the incentives that are included in this package will expire at the end of the year unless congress acts to extend them. it is vitally important that these tax incentives are extended in order to maintain the economic recovery that it slowly started to take hold in this country. the legislation extenders creates important tax credits for individuals.

it extends the deduction for tuition and education expenses, helping families send their children to college. it continues to allow teachers to claim a credit of up to $250 for out-of-pocket purchase of classroom supplies to better educate our children, and it extends the increased standard deduction for state and local property taxes so that working families can keep more of their hard earned dollars for more of their necessary its during these tough economic times. it includes an extension important to business, including the credit for a company's r&d expenditures. extending research and development credit is vital to ensuring that american companies remain competitive and on the cutting edge of innovation. this credit is of particular interest to the area of new york that i represent because its extension will further the expansion of the michael chip fabrication and nanoindustries

that's blossoming in upstate new york. congress has had to retroactively extend it. american companies rely on this credit and upon it continuing to adequately -- so they can adequately plan for their long-term research projects. i support this proactive extension for providing that continuing, and ilcontinue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that will eliminate concerns for further explorations in in lapses. it will address the drop in charityible giving that's been caused by the -- charitable giving that's been caused by the current state of our economy. it extends charitable contributions of real property, food inventories, books and computer equipment. the bill allows tax charitable contributions of up to $100,000 per taxpayer per year. when i speak with constituents who work and volunteer their valuable time with

not-for-profit organizations they tell me this is more important than ever today with our struggling economy. these provisions help those organizations continue to provide the assistance to those in need which is particularly important today. supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider later today is simple and common sense. we can provide tax relief and incentives to middle-class families, spur innovation, retain and create jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations and reduce greenhouse gases. and we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. thrart diaz-balart mr. speaker, i'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from new york, mr. arcuri, for yielding me the time and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: the underlying legislation, h.r. 4213, the tax extenders act of 2009, extends for one year a number of noncontroversial, temporary tax relief provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. these provisions will benefit individual taxpayers, students, teachers, small businesses and other companies that invest in research and development. while i support these touch rather tax relief extensions -- these temporary tax relief extensions, i believe these tax provisions should be made permanent or extended for more than one year. for example, the bill includes a one-year extension of the sales tax deduction. it's very important in florida, the state that i'm honored to represent, because without this deduction floridians would end

up paying significantly more taxes to the federal government than the taxpayers with a similar profiles in different states. these year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets. . leaving these important tax provisions to the last minute also i believe is most unfortunate. it unnecessarily places an additional burden on families and small businesses that are already struggling in this economy. i also oppose the inclusion in this legislation of a permanent tax to pay for temporary tax relief. the bill would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest,

which is currently taxed at a rate of 15%, to a rate as high as 35% at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39%. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is a tax on wall street venture funds, but as our friend, congressman kevin brady explained last night when he testified before the rules committee, about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes, and shopping senters in our communities -- centers in our communities. those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. yet once again -- yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments.

further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery. the construction industry has been hit very hard, mr. speaker, in the community that i'm honored to represent. and too many jobs have been lost. so what we need to be doing is incentivizing job growth and investment in the construction industry. unfortunately we are doing the opposite. with this legislation. during his first inaugural address, president reagan said, it is not my intention to do away with government, it is rather to make it work. work for us not over us, stand by our side not ride on our back, government can and must provide opportunity not smother it. foster productivity not stifle it. the legislation being brought to the floor today will not do what president reagan said we need to do.

with unemployment at 10% and an economy struggling to recover, this is not the time to raise taxes. particularly a tax on capital investments that help create jobs. this new tax will discourage the entrepreneurial risk taking that our economy desperately needs right now in order to create new jobs. 8 -- mr. speaker, for centuries the united states prospered because we have been the safest place in the world to investment. it was good for business. to invest in the united states. to create new businesses. to -- in other words, to create jobs in the united states. we are moving away from that. philosophy that made this country the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. and our -- and because of that

our economy will continue to suffer. we are moving away from that. just yesterday an increased capital investments in small businesses. yet here we are today ironically increasing taxes on capital investments that could help small businesses grow and provide them the capital to hire new workers. during yesterday's rules committee meeting, we heard testimony from my friend and distinguished colleague from louisiana, mr. cao, regarding a proposed amendment that he wished to have the house debate today. his amendment would extend the time for making low-income housing credit allocations under the gulf opportunity zone act by two years. according to mr. cao, this extension is needed to preserve the availability of financing for affordable housing projects

in the gulf states. this amendment is just another example of mr. cao's thoughtful efforts continuously on beof half of his constituents. unfortunately, the majority in the rules committee decided that once again they would block all amendments from consideration, including mr. cao's, as well as amendments for consideration by mr. grady, mr. reichert, and mr. geoff davis of kentucky. it's unfortunate the majority continuously they block the process. they campaigned on the promise of of openness, they said they would open this process as it had never before been opened. that there would be a transparency that had never before been seen. what we have seen is exactly the opposite.

they have closed the process like never before. the majority should have allowed consideration of all the amendments to the legislation that were submitted before the rules committee, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, a member of the committee on ways and means, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman. this rule provides for consideration of a $31 billion spending bill including some worthwhile provisions and some not so worthwhile provisions. approval of this extenders package has become something of an annual ritual regardless of whether democrats or republicans are included or in charge, and the term temporary tax break has become an oxymoron. if the day's proposal required the government to write more checks to wall street and other fortunate americans, there

would be howls of protest, but because this involves tax expenditures not direct expenditures, there is no protest and there is no scrutiny of the expenditures. a tax expenditure occurs when this congress decides to award some interest group, usually those with the most powerful lobbyists, the right to avoid paying taxes on the same basis as the rest of us by writing in some preference, deferral, loophole, or tax break. the principle alleged virtue of today's bill is that it changes nothing. there is nothing more, there is nothing less than the advantages that congress has repeatedly extended in the past. in a modest effort to address the glaring disparate between the sunlight of the appropriations process and the shadows of the tax code, today's legislation does include a new requirement that i authored requiring that the joint committee on taxation and the government accountability office thoroughly evaluate and

report on a set of criteria, the cost-effectiveness of each of these tax expenditures. the center for tax justice has been an invaluable partner in securing this provision. a good example of the urgent need for review was provided only yesterday regarding one of the most popular provisions in this bill, the research tax credit, that i have long personally supported. calling for its permanent extension has become synonymous with being tech friendly and being concerned with economic growth. but the government accountability office, quote, identified significant disparates in the -- disparities in the incentives provided. it determined a substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall for some while much potentially beneficial research receives nothing. that is why we should be scrutinizing these tax expenditures even though it's popular, at least as closely as we do direct. on the plus side today's bill

does effectively address international tax evasion by individuals. on the minus side, it does nothing to stop an even more egregious abuse by corporations shifting jobs and tax revenues overseas. in fact, while some tried to draw a distinction between illegal tax evasion and avoidance, the only real difference between individuals legally hiding their cash overseas and corps prations manipulating the tax code, is the corporations have better lobbyists to obtain a veneer of legitimacy. similarly, the equitable -- may i have an additional minute. mr. arcuri: i yield an additional minutes. mr. doggett: generally the equitable taxation of carried interest in this proposal is belatedly a step forward. but it presents two problems. first, the bill fails to distinguish venture capital which is so important in spurring new businesses in the most innovative sectors of our economy. second, the senate is most

unlikely to accept the financing that we propose here and instead is likely to grab something from our health insurance reform pay-fors in the form of employer provided health insurance as a substitute there and begin taxing that. something that so many members of this house have opposed. facing a soaring deficit, to me tax justice means before we ask working families to pay any more taxes, we ought to question why congress has done so little to crack down on those getting special treatment and to prevent billions of dollars of tax avoidance. next year america deserves a little more tax justices and a more level playing field for small businesses that have not take advantages of all the dodges available to their multinational competitors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to my good friend dr. boustany of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my deep

concern about gulf coast disaster relief left out of this bill. yesterday i offered an amendment in rules to extend important tax provisions, tax relief provisions to help gulf coast residents rebuild after the 2005 hurricanes. it's disappointing yet again that the majority is bringing this bill to the floor under another closed rule prohibiting amendments to be debated. the economic downturn complicated gulf coast recovery and jeopardized the effectiveness of katrina and rita aid. residents need more time to fully utilize existing disaster assistance programs before they expire. congress should extend the go-zone low-income housing tax credit for an additional year. at risk, currently at risk are nearly 70 affordable rental housing projects encompassing over 6,000 units along the gulf coast.

these projects take time and this important extension will give investors and developers the confidence to move forward on these very important projects. congress should also make disaster related low-income housing tax credits eligible for the new exchange grant program. this will provide immediate relief to disaster impacted states as the market for housing tax credits rebounds. the bill also cuts short tax incentives for businesses to invest in the hardest hit areas along the gulf coast who the special depreciation rules that promote economic development. my amendment would extend the go-zone 50% first-year donne bohnous depreciation to 2010, bringing new capital to communities struggling to recover. they were hit twice. basically by hurricanes and now the economic downturn. gulf coast residents are resilient, they are working hard to rebuild, congress shouldn't pull the blue dog on

existing disaster -- put the plug on existing disaster programs. what folks need is certainty. businesses need certainty. and what they are seeing is nothing but uncertainty coming out of washington. this is not the way to stimulate a recovery. whether it's from hurricanes or from this economic disaster we are facing. we need certainty. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to my friend from louisiana, extraordinarily thoughtful member of this house, mr. cao. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cao: i want to thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. i just want to thank him personally for his continued commitment and passion for the people of the gulf coast. mr. speaker, yesterday i offered a bipartisan amendment

to the tax extenders act of 2009 for myself and my colleague, mr. melancon. this amendment would have extended the place in service deadline for low-income housing tax credits under go-zone for two years. if included it would have freed up more than $1 billion in delayed housing projects and supported thousands of jobs in the gulf cost -- coast. and contributed greatly to the sustained redevelopment of the hurricane impacted areas. the amendment had bipartisan support in both chambers of congress. representatives from h.u.d., the obama administration, housing groups, and private companies called and wrote letters in support of this amendment. yet even with this level of support, the rules committee voted along party lines not to

allow it in the bill. can i not say how disappointed i am that this happened. it is disappointing that the committee would choose to act in a bipartisan fashion rather than with the best interest of the people of the gulf coast in mind. i have spoken before about how congress is at its best and serves the people the best when we put partisanship aside and attend to the people's business. it is part of of our job description as representatives to represent their issues and concerns to the best of our abilities. when we conform to party politics, we fail to make the right decisions for the american people. . there are some issues which

ought not to be partisan. the development of affordable housing for hurricane victims is one of them. among the projects placed in jeopardy by this deadline is the housing project in new orleans. it's one of the city's oldest and was once made up of 896 units. this site was slated for redevelopment with the same number of units to allow any resident who wished to return the opportunity to do so. additionally, this site would have had parks, support centers and homes for sale. now, it looks as though it will be in limbo because of party politics. i challenge my democrat colleagues to look low-income families in the eye and say that the decision that they made was best for hardworking

families. low-income families along the fwuffle coast trying to survive the ravage of hurricane katrina and rita do not care about party politics. the only thing that they care about is, will i have affordable housing to shelter my children from the cold? we have to get beyond party politics to address the needs of american families. and i hope that we can correct the language in the tax extenders bill in order to address those who are in need along the gulf coast. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i assume my friend has no further speakers.

mr. arcuri: that's correct, i have no further speakers. mr. diaz-balart: thanks. mr. speaker, we believe as the overwhelming majority of americans do, that members of congress should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. if shouldn't be an issue, frankly, because the majority and the distinguished speaker during the campaign, the political campaign, said that they would have the most open congress in history and that members would have at least -- should have at least 24 hours to examine bills before those bills are considered on the floor. but that hasn't been the case. i remember in the rules committee one evening -- well, one early morning at 3:00 a.m.

we were handed a 900-page amendment -- it was called the manager's amendment -- to energy legislation, the so-called cap and trade legislation that we considered a few hours later, just a few hours later here on the floor of the house. and no one had an opportunity to vote on that legislation. we had other legislation with very significant and extensive pieces of legislation. so the american people i think rightfully so, they were outraged when they saw those examples of very important and extensive pieces of legislation being brought to the floor without members of congress being able to even read them. and they should really be posted online so that not only members of congress but the american people generally could read them. so that's why legislation has been filed by a partisan group

of 182 members that have signed right there, right on that desk in front of you, mr. speaker, a discharge petition, it's called, they go up there and sign, i signed. 182 members have signed the discharge petition saying to bring to the floor legislation saying members should have 72 hours before legislation once it's filed before legislation is brought to a vote on the floor. so that's why i'm asking for a no vote on the previous question so we can consider that legislation that 182 members have gone to the desk there and signed. bipartisan legislation by congressman baird and culberson. it would not interrupt this legislation that is being

brought to the floor at this time, the tax extenders legislation, because if the motion passes, the motion i'm making provides for separate consideration of the baird-culberson bill within three days. so we could vote on the tax extender bill and once we've done that, consider that legislation requiring the 72-hour time frame for members to study the legislation legislation and quite frankly for the american people to read the legislation before it's voted on. so i ask unanimous consent to insert text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. diaz-balart: and thanking my friend, mr. arcuri, for his courtesy, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr.

speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague from the rules committee and friend from the state of florida for his abled management of this rule. mr. speaker, in closing i'd like to point out that the underlying legislation will extend a number of expiring tax relief that individuals, businesses and charitable organizations depend on to improve the quality of life and strengthen our community and our economy. these provisions are relied upon by families and individuals struggling with rising costs of everyday items including food, gas and health care. they encourage companies to hire more workers and invest in new technologies. as our country is heading to beginning to turn the corner, the naysayers continue to oppose any necessary substantial change. as if that is not enough, they continue to offer no meaningful alternatives, only more of the same policies of incurring more debt, passing it on to our children, and saying no to any responsible policy offered by the majority. it should not be the rule of

the loyal opposition to oppose every bill the majority offers. that is the reason partisan divide is so wide in this country today. this -- the bill, h.r. 4213, is a good bill. it is good for democrats and it is good for republicans. it is good for all americans. to say we should not pay for it flies in the face of everything the democrats and republicans have been saying for months, that we cannot endlessly borrow and increase the debt but must restore fiscal responsibility. just a short time ago i heard a colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle giving a one minute saying that we must stop the runaway spending and the record deficits. that's exactly what this bill does. it makes us accountable and pays for the tax extenders. h.r. 4213 strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives to help families and businesses without increasing the deficit. i don't think the importance of this fiscal responsibility can be overstated.

we all know that these are challenging times but we cannot endlessly borrow our way out of the situation. and there's only two ways to do the tax extenders. either to borrow and pass it on to our children or to have responsible ways of paying for it, and that's exactly what this bill does, responsibly pays for these very important tax extenders. for years, borrow and spend policies of previous administrations have saddled our children's future with a $9 trillion of foreign-owned national debt. all incurred during relevant times of economic prosperity. the debt translates into daily interest payments of $1 billion. these tax extenders are paid for. i repeat, they are paid for. h.r. 4213 represents the dedication to commonsense pay-go principles that we in congress should have to balance our books. even in these tough economic times just as our constituents do. this legislation does exactly that.

i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and the rule because the american people are counting on us to extend these vital tax provisions in order to continue to improve our economy. i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for middle and high school students. top prize, $5,000. just create a five to eight-minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths or the challenge the country is facing.

it must incorporate c-span programming and offer varying views. winning entries will be shown on c-span. grab a camera and get started. go to studentcam.org for contest rules and info. >> now, the chairman of the house financial services subcommittee on capital markets, congressman paul kanjorski, joined us today on "washington journal" at that talks about the financial services bill that is before the house today. an paul kanjorski, thank you for being with us. tell us what you think about the health care bill. guest: it is not the most perfect thing in the world, americans seem to want absolute perfection. the reality is that it is surprisingly refreshing and i think that the american people will be pleased. i know that we shock to the

devil out of the industry. which is a healthy sign. people are attacking both sides of it, which is a healthy sign. it is the beginning. we have got a long way to go. we have got to work out a lot of philosophical problems in the congress. we are trying to do that and yet the first phase of regulatory reform done so that some of my colleagues can brag in the future that what happened in the past will not happen again. not quite true, but this is the best that we can do to anticipate major problems in the future. host: what work has been going on in your committee lately? guest: we have about eight bills that we are taking to the floor today. calling for regulatory reform. of them i have probably drafted four or five of them.

i have participated in the amendments to two others i look forward to it. host: let's talk about some of the elements. the consumer financial industry? guest: probably a new theory. how it will work, we are not sure. it sounds more radical than and is. it sends a clear message that consumers have not been adequately protected. that there has been an overemphasis from the regulators on safety and soundness. but the reality is that there has not been a great deal of attention and protection paid to the needs. it takes on some of the leveling

out of the regulatory process so that not everything is spent on safety but there is a direction in payments towards the protection of consumer rights. which is good, many of the problems that occur in this country are excesses' that occur from sticking it to the consumer. the effort we are going through in the credit card industry today is just horrendous. you get the feeling, as a member of congress, that you would like to grab some of these people and ask -- what you mean 29% when there is no default and a good record? but you can arbitrarily raise the interest rate at will? that is wrong. we cannot constantly be passing pieces of legislation to right every wrong. this agency is going to have the authority to look into that and appropriately sanctioned companies that are abusive in

their interest rates and how they handle these things. so, we will have to see how it works out. it will certainly be better than in the past, but it is an intrusion of the government into private enterprise. this last year shows the government has to do that, to an extent, to save and protect people from excessive abuse from the business community. host: critics say that that might be too far reaching. but the agency might affect companies and businesses outside of the typical realm. guest: a legitimate criticism. we will have to watch that that does not happen. the nice thing about a lot is that you've analyzed as another. -- nice thing about the law is

that you can always pass another. on the other hand, if you do not provide the authority to right wrongs, they become so egregious that they are destructive. we will try to find a balance. host: too big to fail -- talk about the work you have done on that front. guest: glad to get the opportunity. that does back a long ways. i always doubted that we have the constitutional authority to become so heavily involved in rearranging companies of interest. as we move along systemic risk, which mr. frank is the drafter of the legislation of, did not work last time. we needed something before

bankruptcy or during bankruptcy, or in preparation for handling a@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @n resolution authority in the form of a bil they put that in the form of a bill and that was prepared by the committee. 5j when the secretary was before me i questioned, they felt they had the legitimate authority and i guess he feels they can go one step further and preemptively prevent getting to the point where they are having such a systemic risk to society and may bring down the economy.

why wait to that critical stage? why not look at what's happening and recognize that there are some companies, but it may be size and maybe interrelationships and maybe interconnections, there are all different reasons, but they are so -- have so many tencals into our system that if they are arranged individually to fail or potentially to fail they could bring down the entire system. and minority to prevent that from happening in the future, we have this counsel of the regulators of the top 50 in the country in the financial service industry. and then if they see something that's wrong, i suppose we will have the authority that if we determine there will be a grave effect on the economy as a whole by the atributes of these companies, that they can move in and restructure them, organize them, limit what they can do, stop them from merging

or consolidating, whatever may be the effect to lessen the chance that they may cause systemic risk to the system. now, this came about in a very serious way when i took members of the committee and myself to europe and we met with the e.u. and they have the same desire. in europe they want to find a way to make -- force companies not to become to compelling to governments and taxpayers have to stand instead for them. and they agree that they do a very cooperative effort with the united states. because america and europe are responsible for 70% of securities, we have an open opportunity now to try and get our hands around how we will do this. other than that, we are fast on our way to a megacorporation, particularly in the global market, that is -- exceeds in strength the size and power of any single government to regulate. and we could end up with the big c, as i call it, the one

gigantic corporation that's above and beyond everybody else. that will put into challenge democracy and capitalism in the form of corporate governance because they -- there's a political difference between the two. democracy and the united states government, particularly, operates on a democratic process. corporations is basically authoritarian. they are dictatorships. we don't want to go to the farther where we have this fight. this is our one opportunity to say, can we provide authority within the regulatory structure of the united states and europe to massage situations that won't allow these countries to get so grave that they could bring down the total collapse of the economic system of the world? host: let's go to the phones. a lot of people lining up to talk to you. margey calling on the democrats' line from macon, georgia. caller: yes, i want to make a joke and then i have a question for you and then i'd like to have a follow-up. the joke is the dictators are

the judges and they tell them what to do. that was evidence when they had the stake holders in the insurance debate have their say and they were talking about the insurance company not -- the people should be the stake holders. i'd like to ask you. are you aware that mr. paulson and what's his name that wrote the tarp bill back in august, this is according to andrew and mr. paulson net with the entire board of goldman sachs in june of 2008? this was on c-span tv. and then? july and august the a.i.g. president went to them and asked them if they could become bank holding companies and primary dealers so they could reap the benefits of their own companies going broke several months down the road we have supposedly a shock and they took all their stocks out and

we the taxpayers are the ones that paid for it. were you aware they had this tarp written up? guest: the question is if they had the tarp written up as a bill before the crisis occurred, if that's the question, i know that treasury ordered certain studies to be made and they do this all the time. they do this in the pentagon. they have war plans for every nation in the world. in treasury they have contingency plans for everything that might happen. and certainly what happened in september, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back, that wasn't the first occasion that we knew we were going to run into and were running into a financial disaster. we'd actually had it occur almost a year before in august. so when there was a failure in august of some of the securities, it was anticipated that worse had been case scenarios could occur.

i wouldn't be surprised if the secretary ordered a study what we could do under existing law if we needed greater authority if certain conditions occurred that they take those steps and later on they were brought out. but i participated to a large extent in drafting the rescue plan which became tarp. we started out with a very small bill from treasury. i think it was 3 1/2 pages and ultimately the congress, both the house and the senate, wrote it up to where eventually probably 400 pages. so a great deal was added to it. numerous changes. and as a matter of fact, a lot of the powers that were ultimately used and methods were not in the original bill but were inserted by the legislators in the congress when we worked on the rescue plan. so, now, i don't doubt the veracity -- i'm thinking of his name now, our friend from "new york times" "too big to fail"

book, his statement may be absolutely correct. but i don't think it's pertinent to the matter. we were pulling on all sorts of information and still are. as a matter of fact, just as late as yesterday because of a piece that appeared in "the new york times" involving "too big to fail" a professor -- i'm sorry -- the rating agencies, a professor from the stanford law school called my office to offer some suggestions because he saw my name cited in the article and his name was in the article so we connected just as of yesterday. that's happening all the time and that's good. i welcome anybody. anybody that has a solution to the present economic problems of the united states or the world and they could add something, don't hesitate to talk to me or members of congress or members of the senate, anyone you can because nobody has a capture on what is the right process or what should be done. and it's amazing how many good

great ideas come from simple conversations. host: representative paul kanjorski is our guest, he's a democratic colleague from pennsylvania. we are talking about the consumer protection act. we will have the republican congressman spencer bachus. we have troy of ohio calling. pat is on our republican line. hello, pat. caller: good morning. i think that barney frank should be a -- he's done so much damage to our financial industry through intervention into established, prudent -- [inaudible] the government -- prudent banking practices by forcing them to lower their standards. and you can see where that has

goten us. guest: well, i would like to at the fend my chairman and most of us do that all the time, but i would have to defend him not necessarily in the particular challenge that you make but just generally. look, there is an awful lot of information and misinformation that circulates in the country at one time, and some of it is for pure political advantage. some is because of philosophical difference. and some is just pure misinformation and misunderstanding and then actually some of it is true. but the reality is that mr. frank is not responsible for the disaster, one. two, he has had a sympathetic ear toward lessening amounts that people would have to contribute in mortgages in the past. and took steps to encourage that. but he was not the final regulator. none of us are the final regulators.

we passed the laws. the regulators implement the laws of the land. and contrary to what you may think, very often they don't agree with us, nor do they implement them in the way we intended they be implemented or that we'd like them to be implemented. they have a separate function as a regulator. they do that. i think to try and find this point, a justification for responsibility of who was responsible, there really isn't in. and that's part of the problem that we have. i say it all the time. particularly i was in france and i past the area where the guillotines were in great practice in paris. i said the one thing that's lacking in our crisis today is we have no one to put to the guillotine and people are totally frustrated and that's true. in past crises we had a criminal, we had a scandal, we had someone who could be identified that has done some wrong. this isn't the case.

this is a case of a society going to extreme excess, having all the signs over a period of 10 or 15 years that at the regulation and lack of attention was going to cause problems or could cause problems. but no one, the finest economist in the world really picked it up in time. oh, there were a few that gave soundings that there were problems coming. but not in sufficient significant numbers or in describing the potential catastrophe that was on the horizon so that it ends up we don't have any villains. and when you don't have a villain or someone to put to the lash, it's a very difficult thing. if we can just get over that and think of the positive side of this, we -- just a year ago this country was own the edge of total destruction. the world economic system was on the war -- the edge of total destruction. a democratic congress came

together, structured certain bills that put us away from that catastrophe at that time and then it transitioned into a new presidency, created a whole psychology that since the last year we saved the economy. that's true. we have. and that's not a political judgment on my part. that's a judgment from republicans, economists throughout the world that what would have happened, we'll never know how bad it could have been. but in fact we took steps to prevent it. we are now in the recovery stage. and you can tell we're in the recovery stage in the way the shock has gone sufficiently away that some of us want to find fault with others saying it was their fault or the other's fault. in reality that's a sign of health. we're coming back. we have the time to look around and try and find fault. i don't want you to feel guilty it. i don't feel guilty about it. what i'm trying to say, we are not out of the woodwork. we still have some problems probably for the next six months or year to get the economy really stabilized but

it's on its way. i'm optimistic. i think we will get there. thank god we have the strength of george bush -- w. bush, of secretary paulson, chairman bernanke, president obama when he came in and now secretary tim geithner, all of these people have really merged to performing a great effort. and the congress quite frankly on both sides really should be thanked in a way because they did their job too. not all of us agree. not all of us succeed. but everybody tried. and you know, the real beneficiary of all of this is the american people. we did not go into a great depression. host: let's go to josh on the independent line calling from deer park, washington. caller: congressman kanjorski, you're a master filibuster. i'm curious, why should i believe a word you say? i watched an hour of "frontline," and you're one of the biggest crooks in congress.

no blame? guest: look, why don't we be a little intellectual and ask questions. i don't really care what your personal opinion of me is. and all you prove if you can be convinced of my ethics or moral sberptude on the basis of some politically influenced program, that's great. but the only thing i do, i feel sorry for you. i don't feel sorry for myself. if you have an honest, legitimate question, ask it. that's why i'm here this morning. other than that, you know, save your slander for the cheap tabloids and subchannels on television which love that type of work. host: let's go to davenport, iowa. caller: good morning, paul. i was curious, do lobbyists influence, you know, the committee and are they any part of your job? do they hold any representative's positions on the committee? i was wondering about kind of

inflation. i know with tarp the problem that we had and we clearly avoided to some degree how bad the depression-like effects were with job loss. you know, i was working at john deere at the time as a machinest, they just laid off 100 people. to try to save money in the process of -- a lot of companies do that. can you guys -- you talk about ethics and stuff. in my area of the quad city area of davenport, iowa, and illinois, we have a lot of manufacturing. i worked in a place that shut down and they closed their doors. a machine shop i was a union president there. they closed their doors. there's no other jobs popping up to replace these jobs. i'm concerned you talked about ethics. can legislation be drawn up to prevent outsourcing? can you punish companies for outsourcing these jobs?

guest: that's an interesting question. sometimes we do. it's sometimes difficult to accomplish that. we can talk to that. but your first question, do lobbyists have an effect? for me to say they don't would be ridiculous. as a matter of fact, most people really don't even understand what lobbying is all about. it's a terrible name now. lobbying wasn't bad before. but the title comes from the speaker's lobby where people who have interest or the white house lobby as you enter the door in the white house there's an area that's considered a lobby where people that had interest with the government whether it be the president or the congress would come and would assemble and get a chance to talk with them. now, that all fwrose out of the right of petition in the constitution of the united states. and quite frankly the right of petition, although not well understood any more in america is really a extraordinarily important because it means who are the people that do most

lobbying? most people that do lobbying in this country are citizens, constituents of congressmen. i meet with them every day, and they come by and they talk. that's the private citizen lobby. there are also -- i think you're directing yourself to the professional lobby, and these are people that are lawyers, other professionals that are in the washington area generally that are hired by interest groups or corporations or individuals to make their case for them. yes, they serve a role. if -- i think the last time i looked there was something like 12,000 bills introduced in any one single year in the last decade or so. and if you were to have to view every one of those bills and read them in their entirety, a member of congress could never get through all the bills that are introduced or a member of the senate. so it would be impossible just to do one reading, and

understand. so what a lobby does is try and describe and argue to the point that they're interested on one or the other side of an issue. and what people don't realize is that on every bill there are always two sides of an issue. at least two sides. sometimes more than that. and as long as you have strong people that are proper people. when i mean proper people, and those that gain access to members of congress generally are people that you have been -- have tested them over the years. you find out whether they mislead you, whether they give you false information. and if they do, most of them can never get access to the staff or to the member himself. they're cut off. to it's to a lobbyist's great detriment to not perform a full function because they don't just lobby on one issue or one

bill. they make a living by representing people that have interests on various sides of issues and they want to maintain those relationships and credibility, which is important. so i don't think we should fear that. i should say we should watch that it's not misused, that certainly there aren't any improper advances or interests made in that. but in most interests it can. can we get along without them? i don't think you can absolutely outlaw the right of petition. if you did america wouldn't be america. can you separate the professional lobbyists from the citizen lobbyists? very difficult without violating some of the provisions of the constitution. can we watch over it and take precautions? we do all the time. we have registration. we have ethics committees. we have all sorts of protections. are we always perfect? hell, no. will we be perfect? hell, no. we are always going to have problems. but that's what life is all

about. host: let's go to christopher who is calling from detroit. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: yes, good morning, christopher. caller: i am 61 and served during vietnam. i play by the rules. put 20% down on my first home that i bought. and all that sort of thing. and i used to have a great deal of hope for this country, but a couple of things -- a couple of comments. we appear to be the same country on the surface. only in my mind. and i am sorry to have to say things like this -- i would never take the judgment of a stockbroker ever again in my life. and i don't trust most politicians. and i'm not sure who to trust any more, to tell you the truth. i don't give up entirely. we don't see red flags. in fact, to call it red is not

in the color of spectrum of the people who run this country, such as 9/11 and madoff and a wide spectrum of long-term capital management. you think we would have learned from that. the asian contasian. i saw one admit that on a documentary that they made a mistake, pouring money into thailand and they thought the currency wasn't worth what it was worth. we are going to be changed forever. and this is structural. and i'm sorry to see that because i tell you one more thing, if you don't mind. as long as there's a pentagon with a $670 billion budget there will always be wars. other than that, good luck to us all. guest: i don't know if i discern a question there other than extreme frustration with the system. i guess the message i would just like to leave to the

caller is take a step back, take a breath. don't be totally frustrated by the system although i understand why you may be. reality is the american experiment, the great noble experiment that's called america has been unusually successful if you look at it over 220-year lifetime. and even today with all our problems we are the most sought after nation to be a part of in the entire world. and we have been contagious to the rest of the world. we spawned so many other nations that desire to have constitutions and have democracy and have freedom. and we're still i think in any person's vernacular the most free nation and the most opportunity filled nation. we intend to keep that and we will keep that. we have frustrations. but you know, i know none of us like to see fallen stars.

i just watched a news program this morning on tager. he was a hero. i am not a gulf war, but he was a hero. but there are fallen angels. sometimes all of the people disappoint us. that does not mean that we should lose faith in humanity or human existence. the fact is that all of us, every day, are trying to do the best that we can. host: let's try to get one more call. george, maryland. guest: how are you doing -- caller: how are you doing, congressman? caller: you have got to be nice to me. i have been getting some pretty rough questions. [laughter] caller: why not replace glass stiegel with something that is

similar? it prevented this, and now we have this big issue. the solution is real simple. we have to regulate the banks where they will not have systemic risk to destroy the economy. my question is, what are we going to do about that situation than on making a lot or reinstating the previous? guest: we have a committee meeting on that regulatory point going back to quasi glass stiegel. it is hard to put the genie back in the jar. . .

we are in a competitive world on the outside as well as domestically as on the inside. and it would be much easier if we take certain domestic steps in that competitive world and clean things up. and we can do that but we can clean things up on the domestic level in such a way that we would be noncompetitive in the global world and therefore we collapse of our own way because we can't be a global economy anymore. we just have to recognize that. so i would -- i'm sorry we ever left and went away from it. my own personal philosophy. but the majority of the representatives decided it was time to do that, made that decision. and now it's very hard to put the car in reverse and go backward. i think what we have to do now is try and recognize that we are in such a different economy. we do need regulatory reform. look, if you'd said to me even a year ago that i would be in

favor or how large they could get. that would be repulsive to me. i'm supporting it today because i think we were abused. i think we gave liberty an opportunity to the corporate interests in this country and they have misused and misabused it. not illegally. it was under the laws they did it but they put in risk our whole economic system which means your livelihood and my livelihood and the very existence of this nation. that we cannot afford. be, and that's what we're trying to attempt to do today. we're trying to reform the regulatory scape. will it last as long as it has in the past? probably not, but we're going to try our best to stabilize the economic system and keep the economy going and growing, and that's going toto, we hope,

that's for being with us. guest: my pleasure. >> the house in recess now to allow members to attend a white house meeting with the president. we expect members to return around noon eastern. work continues on an expiring tax provision bill. we'll expect a final vote on that measure sometime this afternoon. also today, members begin work on a financial regulations bill. speaking of which, we heard more about that bill from the house financial services committee's ranking member, spencer bachus, on today's "washington journal." we'll show you that until the house returns. publican from alabama and ranking member on the financial services committee. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. host: whats@@@@%árr

guest: with health care, with energy, we've seen massive government proposals to come in and basically begin to call the shots. and make decisions. whether it's in health care, whether it's in energy policy. and now in financial services or matters of credit. and i think it's always dangerous when the government begins to make decisions that individuals have made. historically in our country, individuals have made those decisions. there have been competition between private companies. we've not had a government-managed economy. we do in europe, and a lot of what you hear is that we want to go more towards a european model. but we have the largest economy in the world. it's three times larger than the japanese economy. you can put the japanese economy, the chinese economy,

the french economy and the british economy together and our economy is bigger than all of those. we didn't get there by the government making decisions and managing health care. we didn't get there with the government making financial decisions. and really i think shifting responsibility. you know, i heard a caller earlier say, you know, i bought a house. i put down 20% down payment. i'm not behind in my mortgage. why am i having to pay for someone, you know, isn't able to pay? now, whether -- for whatever reason. and i think that's a valid question. in this country we've always allowed individuals to succeed and sometimes to fail. and the same ought to be true of corporations. no matter how big they are, if they fail, the taxpayers shunned underwrite them. host: how would a republican or how does republican legislation differ? guest: well, it differs in many regards. the first thing we don't impose

a tax. the democratic plan imposes a bailout tax. it's $150 billion tax on large corporations in this country. $150 billion out of our economy right now is going to cost jobs. we don't tax corporations. in the event that other corporations, their competitors fail. what we do is establish a council. and that council would look at consumer protection. i think we fail with consumer protection. now, we had laws in place to protect the consumer. but many times government regulators did not do their job. in other cases, we had gaps. we closed the gaps in the regulation. we make sure that someone is in charge of consumer protection. and we don't separate safety and soundlesness in consumer

protection. in other words, we think that for a bank to operate in a safe and sound manner they ought to protect the consumer. and if they don't, if they make bad loans, it's bad for both the consumer and the financial institution making it. so we think there ought to be the same person ought to be looking at the practices of the bank and not only seeing that they protect the consumer but that those loans are sound and they're not fraudulent. host: let's talk about tarp. you said it's time to bring that tarp money back in and not use it for president obama has proposed, new projects, job creation and the like. tell us about your thoughts on tarp money. guest: well, two things. one is our biggest challenge is really what got us in this mess in the last year or two. we borrowed too much money. people borrow too much. corporations were overleveraged. they couldn't meet their obligations. i -- i fear that the government today, we've taken a lot of private debt, we've shifted it

onto the taxpayers' back. and today the government struggles to pay its debt. we have deficits. we have a large deficit. probably approaching $2 frl. we're having trouble funding it. we have deficits as far as the eye can see. you know, that's going to be a problem for us. so there really isn't -- this idea that we have money to spend and we just need to spend it i think is -- it's just wrong. it's a contradiction. the federal government is running a deficit. so we don't have any spare money to spend on this program or that. we ought to put it on the debt. and in fact, that's one reason that we so vigorously oppose what chairman barney frank. and this is it a 1,300-page bill. it's bigger than the original health care bill. so this is a massive bill. and it reaches every segment of our economy.

whether you extend credit or whether you want to, you know, you want to receive credit. you make a loan or receive a loan. you're regulated. and the fwoft will make a lot of decisions that individuals and financial institutions in the past have made. host: let's go to our caller. paul is on the republican's line and wilmington, ohio. caller: yes. basically i have a comment and a question. and i don't know how we got to this point, but my point is i am a working man and i have never received any check from a poor individual. it always has been the rich man who has allowed me to support my family. now, in 2005, the company i worked for [inaudible] we had the highest sales. went from $15 million in three years to $40 million.

in 2006 when the democrats, whatever legislation was drawn up to allow the stock market to outsource our jobs, that's when i started [inaudible] sending them to mexico and china. so i was forced and i was scared so i had to switch jobs. then the housing market fell through. how do we get to the point to where people don't matter, just the individual matters? and that is a job killer because then the grief sets in. and then you have more rich people in this country than you have people working. guest: ok. thank you. well, you know, we did have a lot of greed and we had greed i think at all levels. we had people that misrepresented their income to get a house. we had people that extended loans knowing the person couldn't pay it back. we had fraud on main street.

we had fraud on wall street. i don't believe the regulators did a good job at enforcing the laws. look at madoff. for years people tried to blow the whistle on madoff. so, yeah, greed is a problem. i think greed undermines our society. i think it understands our values. and i think one thing about greed, it's somewhat self-regulating. in other words, if you -- if you commit a criminal act or you get a loan that you can't pay back, there are consequences. but if the government comes in and short-circuits those consequences by saying, ok, you failed but we're going to bail you out, and we did that last year. we did that with some very large corporations. who had acted recklessly. and we came in and we intervened and we used taxpayer dollars to pay them back. taxpayer dollars. and they didn't suffer the

consequences. and i think that undermines individual responsibility. and individual initiatives. so i believe in many cases the government shields people from the consequences and their actions. there's really -- the other thing i think you mentioned, caller, is jobs. let me tell you, the government doesn't create a lot of productivity. that's the private sector. when you take capital -- and this bill proposes taking $150 billion of capital out of the private sector -- it proposes making regulations which are going to cost companies a lot of money. that's less jobs, less money to hire people, less capital in the private economy. and i believe we've already reached that tipping point to where the private sector is being bled dry by the high

level of tax and the high level of regulation. and, you know, regulation, we have a lot of regulations in washington. i don't think we need more regulations. we need to enforce those that are on the books. host: mary ann is calling on the democrats' line from mentor, ohio. hi, mary ann. caller: hi. when are the banks going to gain a fair interest on the savings account? i think if they're charging 13% interest on a loan, they should at least on not a loan but on credit cards they should at least pay .5% to 7% on savings accounts. that seems fair to me. guest: caller, that's a great question. in fact, i think that's one reason why we oppose this bill. the reason that they don't have to pay you a lot of money on your savings account is they're getting all the money they need from the government.

the government is opening the spigots and they're supplying the banks with cheap money at almost no interest rate. in fact, historically low interest rates. as long as the banks can borrow from the government and as long as they can not borrow from you, it's safer to borrow from the government, number one. i say it's safer. at least in the short term. they're not going to have to borrow from you. i tell you, senior citizens and people that save are really being penalized by this easy money. i think the easy money got us into the housing crisis. it got us into the credit bubble we saw in this country. and i think that that's what's happening right now is the government continues to take money out of the real economy and they continue to deploy it in ways that drive down the

savings. host: what should consumers do who are getting letters from the mail from their credit card companies saying they will be charged 29% interest rates? guest: you know, part of that was the result of legislation that we passed recently that said that credit card companies if someone's credit started deteriorating that they still could not -- they could not take certain steps to protect themselves. you know, there again i think -- and let me tell you, you make a deal with a credit card company and then they change the deal on you. the federal reserve, because of the prodding of the congress, has now said that you have to continue to give people that old interest rate. it is a disappointing thing. i don't -- i really don't defend that practice. the congress has passed

legislation which i think makes it fairer for credit card users and some of the practices in the credit card industry quite simply can't defend some of them. and don't wantñi to defend them. host: let's go to connie in lubbock, texas, on the independent line. caller: hi. guest: hey, connie. caller: my comment is rather general. i've been listening to the show, the different topics and the comments of the people calling in have made and there's something missing. nobody has brought up debt. if people in this country doesn't come together as a nation and put aside their differences, their -- you're wrong because you're añi republican. you're wrong because you're a democrat. if we can't figure out a way to be americans, we're not going to solve any problems. .

l" me say i'm frustrated. i'm frustrated with what happened in the past year or true. i'm frustrated at the levels of greed the caller mentioned. it is asounding the amount of criminal behavior we saw. what i think we should do proach this but not compromise our

principals. one of the principals ought to be the government does not pick winners and losers. when someone takes risk and fail, they ought to lose their money not the taxpayers. another principle is to live within ourw3xd means. and i think that's responsibility of every american. we teach that to our children. we should not treat adults like children when they are over leverage. we should not treat wall street firms when they take outsized risks and make tremendous profits, when they then fail to bail them out. that is wrong. you are going to alwaysç have division in this country if there's some people as in this bill that want to establish a bailout, a regime, a permanent anger and there's going to be a lot of disagreement as long as people want to push legislation like this. host: there is concern about

these end of the year bonuses that are about to be given out to wall street firms in the financial services industry s that fair? some have taken tarp money. guess: i think it's fair to the extent if they have taken government assistance. a lot of these companies made a lot of money.çw3ç and there wasñru!ñrç executive compensation, high levelsç of executive compensation. andç then when they got in trouble, they came down and they convinced the federal reserve and treasury to bail them out. i think that's what the anger's about. i think it's anger onw3ç the p of the taxpayer. of the unfairness of this whole thing. in fact, that's why we oppose this. the last -- last week the democrats toç get this bill through said ok we are bailing out some of these large corporations. we are going to bail out main street. the answer is don't bail out anybody. host: should the companies that took tarp money be giving out

bonuses? >> what theymy should do is pay the government back and shut tarp down. that's the answer. é ofç thisi] thing. the government should lo(çç* it.t(qççó w3 or four actions weç took. i think of all those actions the one that i]it appearsç actuallç actually prove toçxd thexdç t may get theirççxd money backn the loan money -- they loan money at 5% with a dividend and issue warrantsxd to some of the large banks.i] thatçñr is theçxdççó onlyt( seems to be making money. the g.s.e.ç money that was giv to fannie and freddie.ç you are not going to seeñr that money again. iñrxdç fear we won't see a lote money that was loaned though general motors.ç i think that's a loss. host: your alternative talks about phasing out fannie mae and freddie back. guest: that's right. the first crisis was not last

september. we had a failure of fannie and freddie about two months before that. and secretary paulsen asked for $3 billion to bail them out. we said we won't reform them and get government out of the business. really even the bush administration -- and chairman frank is always saying the bush administration helped us do that. it wasn't just the obama administration, it was the bush administration. well, the anger on the american people is directed at anyone. it's not directed at any certain pflitical party.çç it's at anyone who continues to, i think, intervene and bail people out. and shield people from their consequences of their action. host: do you see a purpose to fannie mae and freddie mac? do you think they have helped americans in the past? guest: i believe they did supply

liquidity. if you go back and you didn't have them, then i think your main street banks would have gone in and done that. i think what actually happened is they came into the market and they crowded out a lot of small and medium-sized lending institutions, including small banks and community banks. i think if we had it all over to do, we wouldn't have the interventions we ha#x i have always said, the large companies on wall street, they could hire lobbyists, come to washington, some of their former executives are working at treasury or the fed. they are well connected. they can get along. if there's a lot of government regulation, they have the lawyers to cope with it. small businesses don't. and the more government involvement and management you have, it's almost impossible for small businesses to participate

in that. host: republican line, kevin is  i. hi. caller: thank you for c-span and i appreciate the opportunity to just express myself today with senator baucus. i am a republican, have been all my life. since goldwater. that was when i was about 7 years old.ç so that goes way, way back. butçç reallyç we have talked too big to failç and i can tel you that i am one who is small enough to fail. my wife and i had toç reconsolidate. we overspent. it was my fault. i tookçw3q the blame. i'm taking the hit. and we are repaying back the money. we've got a five-year program in front of us. i can tell you honestly as a republican i'm a right winger.

i'm an extremist because i'm a christian. it's not funny, but that's a fact. but the real letdown in my opinion on our part as republican votersç is that our men and women that we have elected to congress, the house andç senate, have not done the0 jobçtp+hatç weçokçç sent t. and the first primary job, if we don't get this one right, none of the rest really matters. and that isi] abortion. don't cut me off here because i'm not quite done. i know it's hard to tie all of theseç problems inç with abor, but believe me,ç christians cat understand that if we are willing to continue to kill in the wombçç our living offspri

then we%q aren't deserving of blessings that comexdç with th whichç christ has given this nation since it was founded. host: let's get a bones from congressman bachus.çç guest: i'm congressman bachus fromç alabama. you didn'tç confuse me with senator bachus of montana.ç a lot ofç what you said firsti all -- earlier i talked about our principles. we shouldn't compromise ourç principles. in health carexdçqmy we shoul compromise our principles. we have -- i believe and i think you believe that it is -- it's an abomination for the government to fund abortions. and yet the senate justç yesterday or the day before rejected tight restrictions on

this government managed plan think is just outrageous. >> you said you had trouble managing and trouble with a loan. but youxd were too small to sav and i think that's the expression i have used. i don't believe in too big to fail. i believe that the fact you're a certain size shouldn't give you any certainty privileges. it'si] unfair because if you ha too big to fail, then you have too small to save. a lot of small businesses in this country have failed. a lot of homeowners have lost + their homes.ç andç i think they have the legitimate right to ask. if you're going to bail out the big %i5ey what about me?fáñr that's why we ought to end the bailout. finally, you said something that i agree with. republicans, we were in the

majority. and we failed. and iw3 don't think there's any way that you can dress that up or put lipstick on it. we did. we had an opportunity and we blew it. i think there is a core within the republican party that believes that given the opportunity again we won't let that happen. so i appreciate the caller. and i appreciate your views. host: delta, alabama, where david is on the democrat's line. caller: thank you. i'd like to say, that last caller about abortion, here we go again with these republicans. the republicans can't keep their nose out of girl's private parts. they want to take our daughters and our wives and get their nose all up in them private parts. host: let's move on. how do you work on a bill like

the health care bill, bringing a -- issues like abortion, do you see it as a red herring? guest: i consider it one of the most important things about health care. that caller, what he was talking about, he was talking the woman. i believe it's about the baby. i believe it's about life. so -- he was talking about what he thought. i think he missed the mark. i think he forgot there was somebody else there, and that was a baby, and that life is psych red -- sacred. that ought to be a core principle not of a republican party but of this country. host: donna on the independent line in new mexico. caller: i want to thank you for admitting the republicans were in charge when the economy blew up. it blew up while george w. bush, ben bernanke, while hank

paulsen, and while christopher cox were there. and early on you mentioned the whole issue of leveraging. christopher cox when he was in charge of the s.e.c. enabled companies to leverage one to 30. republican has enabled me to lose my savings on wall street. now, to come on a show and jen ewe dplect genuflect may be good for your party but it doesn't do anything for me, the person who is out here, who invested, who lost his savings. guest: we have a lot of anger and a lot of anger towards what happened. we did have republicans at the treasury, that's true. we had the credit expansion that went on for 20 years. it went on under bill clinton and it went on under george

bush. there is plenty of blame to go around. i don't think -- if you look, i don't think you would find too many innocent people in washington. one thing that i will say, and that's republicans in the house, during the clinton administration, we warned that these no-down payment loans, and extending loans to fannie and freddie and a lot of banks to people with bad credit without any money down and we did warn about that. we said that this was going to create a disaster. i don't think anybody knew the magnitude of that disaster. yeah, i think what's important, and this is where i think we can all come together is where do we go from here? ,and, you know, to the caller, i would say, ok, all these

mistakes were made and there were bailouts made, but do you want to continue the bailouts? that's what i have to say to the caller and ask her -- i don't know if she is still on the line, but i would say do you want to continue to bail these companies out when they fail? one thing that i think is important is that we have not -- there are several commissions that are going back and examining everything that happened, and they have yet to report what we have got a bill that is 1, 300 pages. it is a bigger bill than the original healthcare bill, and we're going to do all these things, and it is the government doing them, and the caller said this, you know, washington screwed this up. well, i acknowledge that a lot of what happened was as a result of bad policy here. why would you give the federal

reserve -- she mentioned the federal reserve, why would you give them more power? why wouldn't you have what we calmed if we had a four or five five-year problem, why not declare a timeout? host: you are a nine-term congressman in the house of representatives. thanks for being with us. there is a high degree of frustration and anger out there. and there should be. >> the house still in recess subject to the call of the chair. members return sometime between now and 12:30 p.m. eastern time we believe. 4vqz"tqi q' members continue work onokok an expirinx provisions bill. the legislation orders theçt( ç comoms onç taxation toçok st effectiveness of provision that

is routinelykr expire. we do expect a final vote on that measure this afternoon. also today, members begin work on a financial regulations bill. the debate continuing on that tomorrow. until the house returns and our live coverage resumes, more from today's "washington journal." shows warming increased in the last decade looking at how the last decade was the warmest on record. give us a call -- this news, of course, comes in the midst of the copenhagen talks going on right now. the story starts out the decade of 2000 an 2009, appears to be the warmest in the record, the meterological association reporting in a new analysis tuesday, the announcement is likely to be viewed as a

rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics for global warming and as international negotiators seek to devise a global response to climate change. looking on later on down in the ,$r a document that was said to have been drafted by denmark, the conference's host country, including language calling for mechanisms opposed by poor countries for delivering aid to them to help deal with the impacted climate change. theok proposal includes more oversight byç donor nations th

the developing nations want. let's go to our first call for the segment. david on the republicans line in phoenix, arizona. go ahead. caller: yeah, if you calculate the amount of carbon in the air, it's like 10 to the 16th pounds. and they are talking about releasing a bill or so pounds per day. it doesn't work out. there is not enough -- putting enough carbonçç in the air to affect the climate. host: to our next caller. we have annie who is in austin, texas, on the democrats line. hi. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that a few days ago there was a lady from idaho that called abou( how colç her summer and fall had been and that the crops were notç growi, your summers were up there, apparently you don't know that

we were second hottest summer in our history in austin and san antonio. andççfá it broke every record through 1926.t( and the next fewç hottest summs so justç want you guys to look around at other parts of the country andç not just the -- b so blinded by your ownç little area. that's all i wantedi] to sayç. host: thanks, independent line in alabama.ççt(ççw3ç ñççym. caller:w3 good morning. howç are you? i appreciate youç taking my ca. ma'am, theseç records that the keepw3 referring to,w3 they hav only been kept for thet( pastw3 to 120ç years. we haveç to gow3 back farther speak to the archaeologists and peopleç ofççok that nature t

whatç our weather is about.fá this is aboutçó elected officia and money. but we do have to filter our waste. oil companies shouldn'tko have open flames and things of that nature or drain waste into our water. i don't believe that we should lose jobs. i believe they have a way of counteracting this if they usex the money in the right way. host: a piece in the financial times from today. also on this topic. says the current decade will be the warmest on record in this year, probably fifthç hottest a blow to one of the sentç tra arguments used byç clay matok ç someç parts of the worldç thi year it is lickly to have been warmer than any since reliable records around the world began in the 1850's. the global average temperature was 44 degrees -- .44 degrees cellous above the long-term average from 1961 to 1990 of 14 degrees.

let's go to our next caller. jim on the republicans line in mcpherson, kansas. hi. caller: thanks for taking my call. one of the things i'm concerned with this morning on what we are talking about is the globalçw3 warming issue is aboutç sixth seventh on the list of what's going on in the economy. i just don't think that's aç topic we should spend time?xjjy it shouldç be on theç economy wars and everything else. host: let's look at some of the commentary thatç appeared in se of the national papers today. in the "washington post," former governor of alaska, sarah palin, has a piece, copenhagen's political science. she starts out with the publication of damaging emails, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. the revolution of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the american public to finally understand theç concerns of so many of us haveç articulated o this issue. she goes on to say the scandal calls into question the proposals being pushed in

copenhagen. i always believed policy should be engaged on sound science not politics. as governor of alaska i took a stand against politicized science when i sued the government over the list to enlist the polar beer as anw3 endangeredw6spám)qj despite tha the population has more than doubled. a different tactics, tom friedman writes in the "new york times" today, he weighs in on his perspective on what's going on right now. he said, be serious, the evidence that ourç planet sinc the industrial revolution has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns@m%q! periodic microcooling phasesç has been documented by a variety of independent research centers. as this paper just reported, despite recent fluctuationsç i global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no sign of ending. according to the new analysis. theç decades of the 2000s is vy likely the warmest in modern record. he goes on to say that because the climate system is so complex we don't know what other factors

might overtime compensate for that manmade warming or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice, and raise sea levels. it's a game of odds. we have never been here before. that's a peace by tom friedman in the "new york times" today. back to yourxd calls, john, democrats he line, west palm beach, florida. caller: good morning. i was going to follow up oni] wt you were reading from the newspaper there. the factt( that -- i know why w had these fluctuations, why some people say we are warming wise cooler this season,xd calling w is it warm they are season? it's simply because global temperatureç doesn't rise in a straight line. the global temperature is not a straight line phenomenon. it's a periodic wave kind of thing. which means that no one can really tell what part of the phase we are on. if we areç on an upside phase which means the temperature's

going up or on a=) downside ph whichok means the trend will be going down. and it is complicated. andç to tryç to say that one factor is contributing to theç overall temperature change is very unscientific and ludicrous. there are several factors that are involved insthe climateq change. and for us to t$nk that we are going to get a handle on all those factors, they tried models with that and thew3 models fail after a period of time because they don't reflect the realities. we need to take a step back and take a step back andç not jump] conclusions about one way or another. we need to take more evidence and try to find out in a more scientific way, a more unemotional way which way the phase going. are we on an downward trend or upward? host: randy on the independent

line in st. louis, missouri. caller: on that note i'd like to hedge my bets.ok if globalç warming could happe it would result int( real structural changes that would destroy the structure of our economy. i just think in terms of what was told me in 1985, at the time there were both rates of 900% in the arabian industry -- economic growth. and he told me that i needed to beware. he looked at the u.s. as beingxa country that wastedç resources. he could not believe the sizes of homes. now i think in terms of legislators legislatures, who must have known this also. i'm not smart money.w3ç i look at the people that we

send to washington as those who should prepare us for the economic problems that we've got to confront in terms of complication -- competition now and maybe in 20 years global warming. i look at it kind of as the same problem and you have the same fear about it. host: you said tom friedman in his column writes today if we prepare for climate change by pilleding a clean power economy, the climate change would be a hoax. what would be the result? during the transition period we would have higher energy prices. but gradually we would power our homes with winds, nuclear, and second generation biofuels. much less dependent on oil dictators. our trade deficit would improve. the dollar would strengthen. anti-air we breathe would be cleaner. in short asñr a country we woul be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent. to vinny on the republicans line in reston, virginia.

hi. caller: hi. good morning. i just want to sayç a few thin. are independentç thinkers.ç one of the facts is prettyç simple, anyone needs knowledge, that co-2 does not drive temperature. it's the other way around. temperature is stalled by co-2 by hundreds of years. it's documented. and reports about it's getting warmer. but there's no evidence that's manmade. that's all because of people, you know. because people need to look at the research.0 a lot of articles that are otherwise. people disagree with al gore and the whole global warming idea it's man made. host: governor sarah palin would agree. she says that there is not proof

to show that climate change necessarily man made. she writes, in her op-ed piece in the "washington post," we are not only nation where people are questioning the climate change schemes. in the european union the prices croketted after a cap and tax bill. surely other nation also follow suit. particularly as the climate email scandal continues toçó unfold. kenneth,i] independence line in roseland, virginia. good morning. csller: this copenhagen conference is the most important item. you should haveç started your t associated press brought out the fact that theçq developing nations facew3 huge climate chae burdensç areok demanding ta] wealthy nations show more than a cause. there is a split there. but fox news reported that a representive -- james sensenbrenner says he's going to

copenhagen and tell them that despite any promises obama made, no new laws will be passed in the u.s. until a scientific evidence brings out this falsification of the data. which is startling. in addition, the lord mountain, he was interviewsed last night and he says he is going to the chief of police in the united kingdom and report on violation of the law by the university of east ang lea -- angelia where the climate unit is headed. sets forth the data for the international intergovernmental panel on climate change. he's going to report it. he said that when he was over there he said, i want to see the

latest working data. working treaty. they said, what do you mean? the bureaucrats are giving him a run around and he finally -- he kept insisting, says if you don't give me this treaty, i sq%ei+ open. finally they relented andi] gav õ1nuz the treaty and it calls f all kinds of new taxes on + and he says that if the united states doesn't go and get their senators to do something about this, if this treaty is signed, you will never be able to -- go back. host: a financial times story today.çç g-2, the key to co-2, compen haigen summit. there are 190-odd nations represented at the climate talks but arguably only two that

matter, the g-2. u.s. and china. between them they account for more than 40% of global carbon emissions. each has a chance to set an example others will follow. they are also the nations watching each other the closest. let's go to republicans line in pueblo, colorado. hi, rich. caller: yeah. we are in pueblo. freezing to death. this whole thing is a ponzi scheme. it's been in works for 30 or 40 years going back to earth day. that's when they started brainwashing the children in school on all this garbage. it's all reached this point where we got a president and a congress and they are finally willing to act on all the hard work that they have put in on this global warming. so now they feel they are ready to finally start implementing the taxes upon the people.

and give them to other governments. to spread globally. that's what this is all about is taking down the united states business. and the people. come to a lower level more like the other countries that obama admires. that's what it's all about. host: a democratic caller, chris, from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. hi, chris. caller: i was sort of surprised at the against intelligence of some of these callers questioning global warming. i don't know when the reality will start coming when the water is at your chin? the signens is pretty hard and clear. if you do reading outside of crappy papers like "usa today" and you look at the data, it's pretty clear global warming is real. do you not go outside? come on. there's no light going on. i'm proud of obama even though i'm an independent. he's doing something about it. earth day and our children are

brainwashed. i got to question the spence of anyone who thinks like that. that's all i can say. we need to do a lot more and there has to be a tax then bring it on because there won't be no economy, no country. no humanity if we don't doxd something. it's pretty obvious. host: a piece in the "washington post," called a linger pool of disbelief, australian farmers refuse to buy into climate change. australians are on the frontline in experiencing a life altering consequences of climate change which is the subject of global scrutiny this week. brushfires killed 173 people earlier this year during the most severe heat wave in southeast australiaa. rising temperatures and declining rainfall are with increasing frequency transforming the outback into a crematorium for kangaroos, livestock, and farm towns. jumping on the story, as united

states partisan politics and invested interest have paralyzed the response to climate change. to dan, independent line, from fort scott, kansas, hi. caller: hello. it's really just all about political posturing. the purpose of this whole thing is to have another way to tax everybody in the world. and i don't really believe global warming is happeningì% enough sighens -- enough time in science to figure that out. lewis and clark in 1803 when they made their famous expedition carried with them the latest in scientific instruments. one of those was what they called the thermometer. it's only been around since the 19th century. and there hasn't been enough time for science to figure out what's going on in the world. that's really all i wanted to say. host: let's go and take a look

at a store in the "new york times" talking about the cost of climate negotiations and what they may bring. the short answer is trillions of dollars over the next fews decades. this off the climate change problem. it is a significant sum but relatively small fraction of the world's total economic output. the transformational conditions at the conference are expecting to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion. in additional investment from 2010 to 2030 according to a new estimate from the international energy agency. william, republicans line in indianapolis. hi. caller: hi. good morning. my comment, i think it just screams socialism. china and india, they are not going toç participate. al gore has his business interests. and this compone haigen thing is bogus. -- copenhagen thing is bogus as is the nobel peace prize. the private sector will take

car]r and make products that ar economically efficient and a couple of other items. man did not cause volcanoes. and global warming is notw3 cow flatulence orç breathing. i would like someone to prove how dkdt( we achieve the ice a or how didç the ice age come about without man's input? thank you. host: let's look at a comment on twitter. james writes, even if it is warming and co-2 is really causing it, i still need to see ]ñ next caller is on the democrats line, kevin is calling from new york. caller: hi. good morning. how are you doing? i just would like to make a couple of observations. one, i had a greenhouse put in recently. you know what? it's warm in there. the sunlight -- heat from the sunlight is trapped and it warms up.

so this is such a simple thing to understand. i'm sometimes astounded by people's comments. what i would like to ask is for allç of your listeners who believe that this is a hoax or that people think it's socialism, i want them to write all their feelings down on paper and i want them to make copies of thoseç feelings and then i want them to hand them out to their children and their grandchildren. so that those people, those children, grandchildren will know who to blame when we reach a tipping point.ç if they would do that, it's not going to help anything currently, but at least someone will know who to blame. host: new york, independent line, robert. caller: good morning. i'd like to just say that the earth has been warming up ever since the ice age. they seem to know what created the ice age.

but they don't seem to create what is creating the hot age. it's been slowly warming up. all those centuries. and we can do whatever we want to do. but it's going to keep on warming up. thank you. host: thank you. and let's go to anderson, south carolina, where james is on the republicans line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. host: good morning.çç caller: i just would like people to think outside the box. the solar system, how it works, and how the other planets in ouç solar system are going through climate changes as well. and you funed these things if you search hard enough on the internet. the sun also has its ownç weatr system which cycles every 11 years. now, whenç i was in high schoo they were telling us that we

were headed toward an ice age. because it was so cold. and i think the evidence that the scientists i think are on the payroll, maybe, or i think it's just another way to get money out of our pockets as far as cap and trade. they change the name from a carbon tax to cap and trade to try and confuse people. natural order of things. host: democrats line, daniel from birdtown, tennessee. hi, daniel. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was reminded of a simple fact that occurred last year by my bother in law that runs a machine shop in muncie, indiana with about ten employees who is always trying to deal with the china trade policies and inequities there. he reminded me of the olympics where last year where they did not shut down hundreds of

factories in about a 50 mile wraid radius around beijing to clear the air so that you could actually see some of the buildings, and they, you know, they put this measure, losing millions if not a billion dolollars in commerce during th >> the u.s. house should be returning in a few moments following a recess that was called to allow some members to attend a white house meeting with the president and vice president. that meeting has beeni] over fo someç time. we expect the house to beç bac in session shortly. when they do return, work will continue on an expiring tax provision bill. we expect the house to go right into its first series of votes today. that legislation, the tax bill,

orders the joint committee on taxation to study effectiveness of provisions that routinely expire. we expect a vote, final vote on that measure at some point this afternoon. also today, members will begin work on a financial regulations bill. it combines the provisions of eight bills reported to the house separately and expands the government's authority to deal with large failing financial companies that pose economic risk. debate on that bill is expected to carry over until tomorrow. that's what's ahead in the house. meanwhile, it's day 10 of the senate debate on health care. you can watch the senate live on c-span2. so far the senate has considered 18 amendments or motions and have had votes on 14 of them. yesterday a group of liberal and moderate democrats agreed on a new plan to replace a government-run insurance program in the bill called the public option. the proposal now in the hands of the congressional budget office which is figuring the cost of the new plan.

if it's too high senators will have to renegotiate. details of the public option replacement have not yet been released. several amendments have been offered and are awaiting action in the senate, including one by dddd democrat -- north dakota democrat dorgan to buy their prescription drugs in other countries. idaho republican offered a motion to send the bill to committee to deal with federal tax liability issues. also freshman democratic senators are proposing a number of changes to the bill. senate democratic leader harry reid has told senators to expect to work through the weekend and of course we'll be covering that live, the senate, on our companion network, c-span2. the house should be returning in just a few moments. live coverage here on c-span.

>> waiting for the house of representatives to resume their work. they have been in recess so members could attend a meeting at the white house. the house should be back shortly to continue work on expiring tax provisions. until they return, a short interview from this morning's washington journal with ryan t. beckwith, editor of congress.org, he joins us to talk about that free website. now we will go to beckworth

with the website, congress.org. we give people information. we try to give information, break it down. we also give tools so that you can write congress directly. host: this is part of cq? guest: yes, it has a lot ofocee >> we need to break away from that and take you back as the house has come back into session following their recess. live coverage on c-span. yeas and nays, adopting house resolution 955 if ordered and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3951 by the yeas and nays. the first vote will be a 15-minute vote.

succeeding votes will be five-hint votes -- five-minute votes. the unfinished business of the house is ordering the previous question on house resolution 955 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 137, house resolution 955, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4213 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. 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.]