the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188. the nays are 241. the amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. members will please take their seats and conversations off the floor.

the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: madam speaker -- the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank you. ladies and gentlemen of the house, we hear like to refer to ourselves as the house of the people, the people's house, as bill matcher liked to use it. we exercise what our founding fathers set up as a free democracy where the people can speak freely through elected representatives. and frankly, we are there because we have brave men and women who are willing to serve us in the armed forces of the united states.

from time to time, they have an opportunity to visit with us. it is not under the rules appropriate to directly address people who are in our gallery, but it is always in order to pay honor to those who serve us.

mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report 111-370 offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.@@@@"d)h

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 277. the nays are 149. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 35 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from idaho, mr. minnick, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. minnick of idaho. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be countbe counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

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

the chair: the yeas are 208. the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 36 as modified printed in house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report number 111-370, offered by mr. bachus of alabama as modified. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 175. the nays are 251. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, i report the

bill as amended pursuant to house resolution 966 back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4173 and pursuant to house resolution 964 reports the bill as amended pursuant to house resolution 956 back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 964, the question on adoption of further amendments will be put en gros. the question is on adoption of the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. third reading. the clerk: h.r. 4173, a bill to

en-- a bill for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will proceed. please remove conversations from the floor, from the well, from the aisle, from the back aisle. left side, right side, in the middle, in the well. in the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk? the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. dent: in the current form.

i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion to recommit will immediately end the troubled assets relief program, otherwise known as tarp, and require that all tarp funds that are repaid to the treasury, including interest, dividends, the sell value of stock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman can proceed. mr. dent: the tarp funds that are repaid to the treasury, including interest, dividends, the selva value of stock and the warrants be reduced our national burgeoning deficits. it will reduce the debt limit by the same amount saved by ending tarp. i call this motion to recommit the troubled taxpayer relief program act because it takes an important step toward getting government out of the bailout business and curving washington spending.

tarp was originally enacted to temporary plan to address an extraordinary cry -- temporarily plan to address an extraordinary crisis that those said was too big to fail. they did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to taxpayers. that was the assurance given at the time. it is unfortunate that the president chose to extend the tarp program through october 3, 2010. in doing so, he's opened the door by democrats in congress to begin spending unallocated an unpaid tarp funds unrelated to the national emergency. it diverts $4 billion from tarp to a number of stabilization programs. it diverts a total of $23.625 billion to pay for the massive expansion of government bureaucracy that will result from the enactment of this legislation. and just yesterday, we heard from treasury secretary, tim

geithner, that the administration is developing an initiative to tackle our economic problems and unemployment by using tarp funds for small businesses. elizabeth warren, appointed to lead the panel that oversees the use of tarp funds, responded to the secretary saying, quote, it's not news to anyone that small business lending is important. small businesses are closing every day. but treasury has announced three plans and has not gotten the job done, closed quote. the president has said we need to spend our way out of this recession. the majority also tried that in passing the $787 billion stimulus. it has not worked. now, they want to spend more tarp money. haven't we learned that if we want to create jobs and grow our economy we must support the private sector and invest federal dollars sparingly and wisely? unfortunately, this bill not only fails to end the tarp now that the emergency and the financial markets has abated, it also turns tarp into a

revolving slosh fund to pay for the majority's political, economic and social agenda. you know, failing to honor the original intent of tarp and repay the taxpayers is an irresponsible breach of trust that we are committed to stopping. the americans are struggling under the weight of high unemployment, sluggish economic growth and unsustainable federal deficits. this congress has piled on with the so-called stimulus bill that spends too much, borrows too much. and a budget that doubles it in five years and triples it in 10 years. and piling on cap and trade that will cost thousands of jobs in my state of pennsylvania and increase energy costs for families and businesses alike. an undemocratic card check bill that will deny secret ballots and impose binding arbitration and a comprehensive health care bill that raises taxes, cuts medicare and endangers jobs. now, they're piling on with this 1,300-page bill that keeps

taxpayers on the hook for recurring bailouts, allows unelected bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in our economy and adds an array of new job killing taxes and new taxes on consumers, investors and small businesses. reining in tarp -- the best way to bring about economic growth and job creation is to avoid the massive deficits and to lessen the massive increase in the national debt. these misguided policies advanced by the majority are a road to higher inflation and record tax increases. today, we can begin the process of putting our fiscal house in order and inspiring confidence in the private sector by shutting down tarp, returning the unused funds to the taxpayers and lowering the national debt limit. at this time i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: tarp was passed

to bring about financial responsibility. tarp has morphed into a $700 billion bailout fund to advance the administration's political, social and economic agenda. tarp has helped bring about our nation's first $1 trillion deficit, the highest unemployment rate in a generation, and it will turn us into a bailout nation. the american people want more jobs, not more bailouts. and oh, they want their money back and they want their nation back. it's time to terminate tarp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the time has expired. the chair will remind that members, staff and pages are not in the well while another member is under recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to speak in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the motion? mr. frank: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. frank: first, for those who might have believed that when the republicans supported the minnick amendment, when they offered a substitute that they thought was a better way to regulate, for those that might have believed that somebody meant that, here's the proof that it's all a sham. the republicans have a right to recommit motion and could put anything in it. here's what it says about consumer protection a la minnick or their way about dealing with other issues. strike all after the enacting clause. the republican motion now embodies their approach to protecting consumers and regulating derivatives and restricting leverage and letting companies go out of business. it consists of strike all after the enacting clause. they could have taken the minnick amendment and made it part of the recommit. they could have taken that substitute and made it part of the recommit. what the recommit does, what the gentleman from pennsylvania, i think, forgot to mention -- i understand there's a lot of pressure when you're reading the script there, but he forgot to mention

that the recommit motion kills all regulatory reform. dead, done. there's no regulatory reform. i see my friend from texas there. he's kind of rubbing his head. there's no amendment. if they want to help mr. paul and they want to look into the fed, why isn't that in here? strike all after enacting clause, that's what mr. paul gets from them. so let's be clear that it is first of all a cover. they use anger over the tarp to make sure we don't need another one because they kill all regulation. secondly, even as to the tarp, here's my difference. the minority came to the well and said, tarp was passed to be an emergency bill and the emergency is over. you cannot directly address a member, so let me say, mr. speaker, will someone tell the minority leader, it ain't over until it's over on main street or throughout america.

maybe when the republicans had that meeting with a group of financial lobbyists they took some time out to celebrate the ending of the emergency. but most of us know the emergency is not over. the emergency continues. here's what the administration has proposed. under the bush administration, i thought that the lack of regulation created a crisis but the big banks got the first tarp money. we are now finally succeeding in getting tarp money for smaller banks who can do community lending and small business lending. we voted to give $3 billion as loans to people who can't pay their mortgage because they're unemployed, not people who got mortgages they couldn't have gotten. hardworking people who can't pay a mortgage. $3 billion would go for that. that's gone. so the anti-social parts of tarp are ok. now they want to get are rid of the other.

who are they saving money here? their friends, the big banks. the original tarp legislation said at the end of the day, any tarp shortfall would be made up by the assessment of the financial community. we went further than that. the amendment we adopted over the objection of the minority, instructses the s.e.c. to assess the financial institution to make up any shortfall from the tarp. they kill that. they complained before about our assessment. they are very upset we might levy on j.p. morgan chase and morgan stanley and gold man sachs and the other some re sponsability financially for what's going on. they kill all reform. and the pretense that they were for a different form of it they leff it -- left it out of the bill. they secondly say that now that tarp money has gone to the big banks and they don't have to pay it back, by the way, and we

are trying to use it socially to encourage small lending to give it to community banks to help people who are unemployed avoid having foreclosure until they get their jobs back, now they want to get rid of it. to whose benefit? the bilge banks. should we use tarp money to get the small banked and -- banks and community banking? should we use it to help people avoid unemployment? or should we do what they want to do and give it back so the big financial institutions aren't assessed. that's what's at risk here. the taxpayers aren't on the hook for this money. the large financial institutions are are. i know what they say, it'll be a restriction in capital. i think capital is a good thing. to the extent that capital was misused for speculation, that it was misused or unleveraged, it's a good thing but once again, here's what you have. a motion that says, let's not do anything to change the

financial system. let's not have companies go bankrupt and not worry about them, let's not have anything about derivatives, let's do nothing and save the big banks from having toe pay -- to pay their share when the tarp is repaid. the chair: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the question son the motion to recorecommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190, the nays, 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider -- mr. frank: mr. speaker. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record think a vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 223, the nays are 202. the bill is passed. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will -- denote. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear on the record.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i send to the desk a joint resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 62, resolved that the second regular session of the 111th congress shall begin at noon on tuesday, january 5, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the joint resolution? without objection, the joint resolution is read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker

and i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: on monday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate, 12:00 p.m. for legislative business, votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for morning hour debate, 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. on wednesday an thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business, on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, we will consider further action on h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act of 2010. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask the gentleman about the schedule for the rest of this year. obviously, many, many members are asking the question as to when we will be able to return

to our districts, many have planners in christmas holidays. so i would ask the gentleman, does he expect the house to adjourn for the year by friday, next week, december 18? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding that is my hope. it may not be my expectation. it is my hope. and it is my plan. but obviously, the gentleman well know, having been in this position in the past that is somewhat contingent upon what our colleagues in the other body do. but it is my intention, and i announced, that december 18 is the last day on which we are planning to meet. i very much want members to be able to be home christmas week. but i want -- i do want, as the gentleman knows as well as i do, that that is dependent upon what our colleagues across the capitol do. clearly we have now passed most

of our appropriations bills, except for the defense bill so we funded most of government. the senate still has to enact, of course, the only the buse we -- omnibus we sent to them two days ago, which has six proping bills in it. one remains. if they pass that, 11 of the 12 would have been passed. but obviously we want to make sure that we pass our defense bill as well. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman speaks a lot about the appropriations factor. i assume that means when we would actually bring up the defense appropriations bill. but specifically, mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman whether it is his hope that we will be considering health care in this house, or whether we can expect that to fall off into next year , and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. as is true of almost all pieces of legislation that are pending that will depend on senate action. until we know what the senate is going to do, it's almost impossible for me to say with any clarity and assurance that we'll be able to take up health care or any other pieces of legislation because obviously the senate action will be essential for that to happen. again, with respect to the defense appropriations bill, it is essential that we pass that bill. it's essential we extend, in my opinion, unemployment insurance and cobra. it's essential we extend the patriot act for at least 09 days while the legislative committees are trying to complete that so that there are a number of things clearly that i think it's necessary for us to do because of time limits, but as my friend knows, the health care -- health care does not have a time limit and it

will depend on what action it's going to take and when it takes it. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and i would ask about the speaker's plan to copenhagen. i think there are about 30 members going with the speaker to copenhagen, scheduled to depart wednesday evening next week, and would like to ask whether that will impabblingt our schedule for work next week, or does he expect that we will be in for five days with the speaker gone. mr. hoyer: i don't know if the speaker will be gone, if we have business to do. i think you're probably scheduled to be on that and i know i am, but we'll be here working if we have work to do to complete our business. i'll be here.

the fact is, as you know, the copenhagen conference ends, i think, on the 19th, maybe the 18th. the speaker had contemplated taking a delegation to that conference, which we think is extraordinarily important. but that will be contingent upon what our schedule looks like for the 17th and 18th and what we've done and accomplished by the evening of the 16th. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman did, mr. speaker, mention that one of the things that needs to be addressed is the debt limit and i believe if i heard correctly the gentleman said that he felt we needed to do that prior to year's end. that's created a lot of concern a lot of reports in the press have indicated that perhaps the administration is looking for ways that we could avoid doing that.

obviously, given the size of the expected increase of the debt limit to nearly $2 trillion, a lot of americans are wondering how in the world we keep spending money we don't have. so i'd ask again, does the gentleman believe that that comes to the floor next week? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think to the extent that the americans are considering that, they were considering that in the bulk of this decade, i would say, while we were spending money we didn't have on a regular basis at very high levels, which is why we went from the $5.6 trillion surplus to the $10 trillion deficit. having said that, we have passed a debt extension, as the gentleman knows that debt extension is in the crool of the united states senate -- is in the control of the united states senate. they can take that off the table and pass that extension. while it needs to be passed, we have done our work here.

the senate has that debt extension. i can't imagine there are any of us that don't want the united states of america, as we would expect of all of ourselves and of others to pay its debts that it has incurred. but it can be accomplished in a number of ways and the senate has a debt extension bill and if we don't act further on that, they can take that up off the floor or the desk and pass it. that's available. the other option the gentleman refers to is doing a new debt extension at a larger number. but that decision has not yet been made. i want to emphasize, the senate has on its desk a debt extension that will ensure the united states of america pays the bills it has incurred. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the gentleman and i were both in attendance at a meeting at the white house this

week where we republicans presented a plan to the president to suggest there are ways we could work together without causing the taxpayers to -- costing the tax payers to try to get america back to work. it's been labeled a no-cost jobs plan. as the gentleman knows, i had suggested last week that perhaps we could work on some of those measures together. i know that the gentleman just told us, mr. speaker, that we may be table expect certain things like cobra, u.i. extension, and others that he believes, i imagine, would be part of a stimulus effort and would wonder whether we could expect any of the items that we presented as republicans to the majority, we could expect any of the iitems we expected -- explained in that no cost jobs plan, to also be part of what may come to the floor next

week? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me say, with respect to cobra and unemployment insurance, i wouldn't call that a stimulus plan. i would call it a tourniquet plan to try to stop the bleeding of some people who have been badly damaged by thing extraordinary depths to which this economy fell starting in december of 2007, leading to unemployment in the last year, the last month of the last administration, 741,000 people, jobs lost. as the gentleman knows this past month, we had only 11,000 jobs lost. that's significant progress, but not success until we get into creating jobs. we clearly believe that one of the important things we want to do before we leave here is a jobs bill. stimulus tends to be viewed as a more broadly based piece of legislation. we've done a lot of that, as

the gentleman knows, with his vote sometimes and without his vote sometimes over the last 12 months. the fact is that we want to address trying to create more job, get our economy going, make lending available for small businesses, expand our infrastructure, which is a direct, not only increase in jobs, but addressing infrastructure, roads, bridges, highways, as well as sewer and water systems critical to the economy and the health and welfare of our people. we're looking at that as we speak and trying to put together a package that the senate may agree to and that we could pass before we leave here. with respect to the no-cost jobs proposal, as i said at the white house, i would be glad, and look forward to discussing that with you, we can discuss it further this afternoon, some of the prose pro posals you have.

i will tell you though, my friend, i have found very few things in life which are free. if we're going to create jobs, we're going to expand our economy to pretend to the american public it's free, just as your tax cuts were not free, any tax cuts are not for free, it sounds like it, but there are consequences. and we believe that, for instance, the tarp funds that your motion to recommit sought to eliminate were essentially, while targeted at the time, really were for the purpose, and you and i both voted for them when they were adopted initially, they were for the purpose of tiing to bring our economy from the depths to to the which it had fallen, precluded from falling off the cliff and bring our economy back. i would suggest to that you that one of the reasons we don't want to see those funds eliminated after they've helped the banks we want to use some of them to help main street,

small business, and job creation, so with respect to jobs, we are very focused on jobs we look forward to working with you on that effort, and your side of the aisle, on suggestions you have and if we can reach consensus, i think the american people will be pleased. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'll respond to the gentleman and say, first of all, i was heartened by the fact that when we can did come into the meeting with the president of the white house he had a copy already of our republican no cost jobs plan. and i took that as a positive sign that perhaps we could actually work together in doing some things that don't cost anything. and, you know, i would say to the gentleman, his comment that nothing is for free, there are some things that we could do together that don't cost anything that will, i think, produce jobs and most people agree they could produce jobs

and some of those being and we tolded the president we would respond and i would share that with the gentleman, also there are a host of rules and regulations being promulgated by this administration and its agencies that frankly harm job creation. those are the kinds of things we could stop right now if we are going to put jobs first and make sure we do everything we can to get americans back to work. as for the tarp funds themselves, mr. speaker,, mr. speaker, my recollection, we voted for that authorization of money in order to stave off a collapse in our capital markets. most were in agreement that we were on the edge of an abyss and something needed to be done and so we took the action. within the prescription of that statute was the definition or perhaps the mission of those funds.

those funds were there to make sure our capital markets didn't collapse. now all of us want to be able to say we're doing things to get people back to work. but i think what the american people are going -- are growing tired of is congress saying that it is spending money for one purpose and then all of a sudden deciding, oops, there's another need out there. let me then go when we get this back into the treasury, spend it somewhere else. so, mr. speaker, the reason why our m.t.r. was classed the way it was is because we feel very strongly in the emergency nature of the tarp program and that in the statute we call for the return of those moneys to the general fund. essentially to the taxpayers and not to go and spend the money again because the borrowed in the first place. so i'd say to the gentleman, we look forward to doing some things that don't cost anything to create jobs. so the discussion at the white

house centered on trade. we know we have three pending free trade agreements. if i recall correctly the president indicated his support for those agreements. because all of us know those agreements will increase exports from this country. i believe, if i'm correct, that the leader himself, the gentleman from maryland, did say, mr. speaker, that he would like to see those exports increased and perhaps those bills taken care of. you know what, mr. speaker? if we're serious about it, why don't we do that next week? we can leave before the christmas holiday and most people would say by passing those bills we could be on the path to creating 250,000 new jobs in this country. and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. very frankly he says most people believe that, the polls don't reflect that.

a lot of members on both sides don't believe that. and that's why these bills are controversial on your side and on my side. i think longer term that is the fact. we have people, however, who are having a challenge seeing their families, keeping their homes, paying their bills right now. as we speak. it's not for free for them. they need help. on our side of the aisle we think we need to give them help. yes, we gave help to the banks, yes, it stabilized them. i voted for that, you voted for that. i think it was the right thing to do. those moneys, however, were to stabilize the economy. now they were targeted on banks which were the immediate problem. an awful lot of my constituents, people around the country said, hey, if you can -- you can help the banks, but guess what? i'm not there. my family's not there. my small business is not there. i need help.

our proposition under those circumstances is, yes, the good news is we didn't have to use all the money that president bush asked for. president bush used about half of it before he left. president obama's used about half of it for the purposes intended. we also used some of it, as you know, for general motors. that wasn't in the bill. but president bush decided that those funds oughten to used for that purpose and -- ought to be used for that purpose and chrysler as well, to stabilize the automobile industry. i will tell my friend with respect to our discussions at the white house, and i understand we have a difference of agreement, we differ fundamentally on how to get this economy moving. your party voted to a person against the economic package that we had in 1993. we voted pretty much to person, not unanimously, against your plan.

i think the plan in the 1990's worked and the plan in 2001 and 2003 didn't work and that's irrefutable. and we fell into the worst recession we've had in three quarters of a century. what we're saying is that we need to take some of that you money, we need to make sure that main street -- some of that money, with he need to make sure that main street, small business, bank lendsing to small business so they can create business and create jobs is a good use of those funds. because we're not done yet. your leader, mr. boehner, said on this floor, it's over. the session's over. i think what he meant was, correctly, that the economists say essentially we have bottomed out and we're coming up. i suggest to you we bottom the outside -- bottomed out because we not only passed bills you and i voted for but we passed a bill that you didn't vote for and that's the recovery and reinvestment act. since that time we've created 6 00,000 to 1.4 million jobs according to the c.b.o. the g.d.p. for the first time

since the third quarter of 2008 has grown, actually 2007, has grown. where it was in the last quarter of the last administration, 6.4 decrease, it grew 2.8%, that's almost a nine-point turnaround. that's good news for the economy but there are a lot of people still struggling. and so, yes, we believe that we need to have a jobs bill and we think it's appropriate to address the funds that we've already authorized, not new funds, that we've already authorized to try to bring this economy back, to not just look at it globally but to look at individuals who are hurting, who want to apply those funds to those folks who are hurting and try to keep them in their homes, get them a job and get their families more stable. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's recognizing that there are differences. absolutely. on how we believe that we can work on getting this economy

going again. i do believe that we have some similarities which is why we pose the no cost jobs plan. so i ask the gentleman again, are we going to see the three trade bills come to the floor? because in my estimation i believe at least one if not all of the bills can garner a majority of the votes on this floor. something we could do next week, leaving town saying we're committed to job creation. are we going to see those bills, mr. speaker? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to give him the answer he knows and the answer to that is no. the bills aren't ready to come to the floor. they need to come out of the ways and means committee as you know. they're not reported out of the ways and means committee and we're not going to bring them to the floor tomorrow. if we brought them -- or next week. if we brought them to the floor next week as the gentleman knows they would have no immediate impact. the gentleman also knows and is

correctly stated i certainly ambition for and have been publicly reported over the last six months or more, i guess over a year, as being reported -- reported as being in favor of the colombia agreement and the panama agreement. i think the korea agreement is a little more complicated in terms of making sure our markets are open to our beef and other agriculture products, to make sure we have a thorough exchange. but three obviously is one of our -- korea is obviously one of our largest trading partners. that's an important agreement. but the gentleman knows that we're not going to bring those to the floor next week and the gentleman also knows that if we did and we passed them and the senate passed them somehow that it would not make an immediate impact. you and i both agree that over the long term it would be a positive impact, i just -- others don't agree with that, but the answer to your question is, no. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and i think he makes the case for all the more reason we do something now if there's no immediate

impact tomorrow, at least we could be well on the way to fostering that impact and those jobs for the americans who, as he correctly states are facing a lot of trouble right now being out of work. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask the gentleman about the 72-hour rule and the importance of that, that we felt back earlier this year. and because of the way that the stimulus bill was brought to the floor earlier, january and february, the backlash we saw that i believe the gentleman and his party committed to 72 hours to review any bill before it was voted on. for the members aswoman as the public, to realize their right to know. and my question to you is, mr. speaker, my question to the gentleman is, why now have we abandoned that commitment? why have we abandoned the public's right to know in major

pieces of legislation -- legislation this week? in both the omnibus bill as well as the bank bailout tarp ii bill we just passed? both of those bills came to this floor, the house voted on it, on the example of the omnibus and within 24 hours, not 72, and in the example of what we considered to be an extension of tarp and a bank bailout bill, there was a 249-page manager's amendment that was made available 8:00 a.m. yesterday and that very same manager's amendment was voted on at 8:54 p.m. last night. how is it that we have now decided it's not important to recognize and abide by this 72-hour rule? and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman -- mr. cantor: i mean i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: first of all, the gentleman has an inclination to state a premises that we all

agree on things that we don't necessarily all agree on. clearly we want to give notice. clearly we believe we ought to give fair notice. whereas it relates to the bill that was considered today, that bill has had over three months of hearings and has been on the table for a long period of time. the gentleman is correct that the final bill, as -- and the manager's amendment did not have 72 hours but almost all the components within it have been known to everybody as proposals that were on the table either in committee or substitute committee markup for some period of time. with respect to the bill that you refer to that we passed on the six appropriation bills, we, of course, had numerous committee hearings, subcommittee markup, full committee markup, house consideration, we passed all six of those bills through this house. the gentleman is correct that there were amendments included

in there and there was notice of all those but i would have liked more time. the problem is, of course, we've come to the -- what is, as the gentleman pointed out, a target date of the 18th. we still have the important work to do, we tend to do that, we're going to give as much notice as we can do, and meet our responsibilities to the american public. the gentleman smiles when i say as much notice as we can give. the gentleman surely will not say, because the gentleman is honest, he understands this process as well as i do, he and i have been here for some years, i've been here a little longer. when his side was in control, as he knows, some major pieces of legislation were considered within hours on this floor, prescription drug bill being a specific example, the biggest titlement reform we'd had in a

long period of time. you reported it some hour in the a.m., 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. and reported it on the floor a little after 9:00 a.m. and we considered the bill that afternoon and passed it that day. or early the next day. so, the gentleman knows what happens is -- and that wasn't even, as i recall, at the end of the session. but the gentleman knows, as practicality, both leaderships find it necessary in order to complete the business the public expects us to complete to sometimes move that when agreement can be reached at the end of a session. unfortunately i've been at this legislative process for over 40 years and members like to delay until such time as they think delay is no longer an option. mr. cantor: i was somewhat

amused by the gentleman's commitment to give the public and memberings as much time as they, the majority, could. we have a 72-hour rule in place. i thought. that was for the purpose of allowing all of us, including our constituents to realize what's going on in this house. obviously, you know, we have a lot of work undone for the year. we've got five legislative days next week. certainly, if we're going to be incurring the type of debt and expenditure, that we are looking at, surely we could make sure that there's adequate notice and that the 72-hour rule is abided by. i say to the gentleman, this is what the public is tired of. i find it somewhat interesting that the gentleman says it's ok for the majority to do that, because when we were in the majority we did that. well, i know the gentleman knows, we were let go. in the majority in 2006.

and they assumed the majority. again, there's a reason for that. the public is looking for transparency, the public is looking for fiscal responsibility, and certainly, when we were talking the numbers that we are talking in terms of taxpayer dollars, $1.8 trillion in new debt, certainly, i think, mr. speaker, we should afford the public its right to know. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield before he yields back his time? i appreciate the gentleman's observation that you were let go. i want to make it clear to the gentleman, i do not believe you were let go because you failed to meet a time frame for reporting bills. i believe frankly, the substance of our work is that which the public makes a judgment on, and frankly, we think that the reason that they turned to us in 2006 and 2008 was because they thought that

the programs and policies you were pursuing weren't working for our country or the economy or for them. with all due respect. but i continue to tell the gentleman that we want to try to make sure, as you did, sometimes, that you, our members, the public, have sufficient knowledge to make the decisions that are called upon for them to make. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would say in closing that the gentleman may be right. it may be the reason for the 2006 loss and the majority coming into power pause of the policies, because of the war, was of fiscal practices what have you. any number of things. but certainly, now, the gentleman knows, the public is not too keen on the agenda being pushed by this majority. in fact, most of the people in

this country feel we're headed down the wrong track. but also, mr. speaker, the public is extremely, extremely concerned about their future. we've got to restore the trust in this institution, mr. speaker. we've got to abide by the same rules that we expect the public to abide by. that is transparency. that is, when we commit to a certain set of rules to live by we ought not change them mid course. that's not what we should be doing. we shouldn't be changing the rules of the game as far as the tarp program is concerned. the public thought that money would be paid back. we shouldn't be changing course in terms of the 7 -hour rule. the public has -- the 72-rainshower rule. the public has got ton -- the 72-hour rule. the public has gotten to know that. that's what i'm talking about in terms of the democratic majority in this house living up to the public trust they

gained in 2006. with that, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. hoyer mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hoyer: i ask that when the house adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at 10:30 -- 12:30 a.m. on monday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> ski unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: one of the great privileges we have is to come here and speak about those who have departed life and pay condolences and commiserate with their families. last week, three persons that were very dear to me died.

isiah "ike" williams a classmate of mine from law school, c. black winbush, the first black commissioner in st. petersburg, and the reverend samuel george, who lived in pittsburgh but in my earlier career worked in fort lauderdale. these three people fought their entire lives for equality. the reverend taught me about ecue menism -- ecunemism. i say to their government that they should be free and have the opportunity to protest. i just want those iranians to

know, as i i give condolences to my friends that have departed, that they are not alone and one of the things we used to say in the civil rights movement, the whole world is watching. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker, and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it came to my attention this week that north carolina granite corporation, a small business in north carolina, was recently informed it lost a bid to supply cut granite for the national september 11 memorial. it was reported that they lost the contract to bidders in italy and africa. this is very disturbing and i hope the decision makers at the memorial will reconsider their decision to ship this important

work overseas. the people of north carolina granite are highly talented work wers experience on projects such as the world war ii memorial in washington, d.c., who are eager to help complete the national september 11 memorial. in the midst of an economic downturn, it makes more sense than ever to use american craftsmen to help build a memorial in honor of those who sacrificed so much on that day eight years ago. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to to speak in strong opposition in the late nest a line of misguided pieces of legislation the house of representatives has debated in the 111th

congress. the wall street reform and consumer protection act may sound like an effort everyone can endorse. but unfortunately, it is just the latest government takeover of private industry. this legislation will greatly expand the powers of the federal reserve. government agents of the federal reserve could now be responsible for breaking up a profitable company merely due to their opinion that an eventual failure could pose a systemic threat to our economy. this flies in the face of the free -- of free market ideals and the american dream. which used to be hard work and you can accomplish anything. due to the actions of this congress, it now reads, work hard, fail, the government will bail you out. work hard and do well, the government will take you down. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> americans are being forced to foot the bill. as kansans sit at the kitchen table, trying to balance their checkbooks this congress has been borrowing and spending money like there's no tomorrow. the latest x. is a 2,500 page omnibus spending bill approved by the house of representatives yesterday this $447 billion package does not require any of the tough choices americans are having to make every day in this difficult economy. unfortunately for the next generation of americans, there will be severe consequences from our government's failure to control spend and the resulting huge increases in our national debt. the government will try to raise our national debt limit by an additional $1.8 trillion. the federal government is mortgaging our nation's future for the well-being -- for its

well being to countries like chi neasm result of this is evident. president obama and speaker pelosi show bold leadership and get back on track by cutting spending and reducing the country's debt not by omnibus spending bills and debt ceiling increases. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. baldwin of wisconsin for today, ms. bordallo of guam for thursday, december 10, 2009, until tuesday, december 15, 2009, and mr. sessions of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered intoork the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include ex-trainls you material. mr. poe december 18 for five minutes, mr. burr, december 18, mr. moran today for five minutes, mr. burton today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask permission that the following members be permitted to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend their remarks, include therein extraneous material. mr. langevin of rhode island for five minutes, mr. murphy of connecticut for five minutes, mr. is a plan for five minutes,

ms. woolsey of california for fife minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes, ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes, mr. schiff of california for five minutes, and mr. grayson of florida for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. pofe texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to assume the gentleman's time? the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: one in 10 americans are without job this is holiday season. this level of unemployment is the highest our country has seen in a quarter century. in the midst of these difficult time, jobs are at the top of america's holiday wish list. yet the president has sent advisors to copen hague ton devise and deliver another job killer.

negotiators from around the world convened in the danish capital with the goal of developing a successor to the failed kyoto protocol which sought to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. when kyoto was approved, the senate approved a u.s. policy that our country would not enter into any climate treat yay that leaves out developing neighs or hurts the american economy. in passing the resolution, the senate recognized the damage such an agreement would do to the u.s. economy. the president and his negotiators would be wise to abide by these guidelines today as any agreement reached in copenhagen would likely be more devastating to the american economy than kyoto. but it's not just copenhagen that americans have to worry about. the president wants to pursue an environmental agenda in any way he can, including thru cap and trade. in my view, cap and trade, approved by the house of representatives in june, remains one of the most damaging pieces of legislation

ever passed by the house of representatives during moimy time in congress, especially as it affects agriculture and rural america. passage of a cap and trade bill will reduce the cost of doing business in the united states, force business owners to close their doors and force companies to leave the country for places where costs are lower. the heritage foundation studied the waxman-markey bill which showed it would re-- result in annual losses of g.d.p. and lead to the los of one million jobs. a at a housing a coupleture subcommittee hearing during this last week, usda's chief economist and other experts from universities across the nation all testified that the cost of fuel, fertilizer and other business inputs would increase under cap and trade, mean manager harm to business and the people they employee. for example, one witness cited energy information administration analysis that showed in 2030, the

waxman-markey bill would raise diesel fuel costs by 15%, electtiesry costs by 202 %. the last thing we need is another law or treaty that dashes the hope for economic recovery and destroys more jobs. but the president continues to push for just that. on monday, the e.p.a. ruled that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to health and the environment. this means the e.p.a. can impose greenhouse gas regulations without the pir mission of congress. we must defeat cap and trade in the senate and put an ento the faulty interpretation of the clean air act of the -- by the e.p. ample. the e.p.a. must be stopped from making decisions that are not spored by science or curn law. at a time when so many americans are without work, the president needs to focus on ways to create jobs and improve the economy. the cap and trade bill, e.p.a.

regulations or others on the holiday wish list would be devastating to the u.s. economy. that's a holiday gift no american can afford. passage of cap and trade and agreement in copenhagen, clean air findings by the e.a.p.a. we can just as soon leave those presents urn the tree unopen. president obama and speaker pelosi, don't be the grinch that steal ours christmas. i hope that's not just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. langevin of rhode island for five mints -- for five minutes. mr. langevin: i ask consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a very special event happening tonight in my district thanks to the efforts of a very special young boy and his family. this evening the second annual serial night will take place at north kington high school in rhode island. while hundreds will gather to

donate to our local food pantry. the mastermind behind this event is one of my young constituents, patrick beganen, an 11-year-old fifth grader and cub stout. like all rhode islanders, patrick has seen the devastating effects of the economic down turn in our state where unemployment has reached 13%, record numbers of foreclosures continue to force people from their homes, food pantries are struggling to meet the needs in their communities and too many of our neighbors are desperate for a hand. last year when he was only 10 years old, patrick came up with a way to help. his idea was that one night of the year families could eat serial for dinner and donate the money or food they saved to a local food pantry. while encouraged by his parents, he began to organize the first serial night last december -- cereal night last december. soon local businesses and even our governor was involved in highlighting this initiative. on the night before the event, though, a snow storm hit rhode

island making it doubtful that there would be a big turnout. nevertheless patrick was there the next day at one of the drop-off sites, running out to cars in the snow to accept their donations. at the end of the day, three tons of food were donated to the rhode island food bank and plans to build on this success were put into in motion -- in motion. like any proud mother would be, jackie did her best to spread the word, reaching out to nonprofit organizations and even writing to president and mrs. obama telling them about patrick's work and asking them to make cereal night a national event. sadly she won't be able to see those efforts come to fruition. on november 7 of this year, two days before patrick's 11th birthday, jackie suffered a ruptured aneurysm and passed away. her death was a shocking and heartbreaking blow to her family and friends but they channeled their grief towards the cause that she was inspired to embrace by her son patrick. this year career nal night will

be an opportunity for -- career nal night will be an opportunity -- cereal night will be an opportunity for those to honor the life of a beloved mother who touched all those who were lucky enough to know her. this holiday season we're reminded how important it is to help each other get through these tough times. we're all reminded of families like the beganens, with the spirit of giving and servicing the community are passed down from generation to generation. and we're reminded that are you never too young to make a difference. patrick is an inspiration to me and i encourage my colleagues and all those who are listening to follow his example by donating to your local food pantry, starting a career nal -- cereal night in your own community and spread the word about this simple effort that can mean so much to a neighbor in need. my thoughts and prayers go out to jackie's family, including patrick, her son bill and their younger son liam as well as her friends and all those who mourn her loss.

mr. speaker, i start a second statement which is equally inspiring. madam speaker, i consider it a privilege to recognize and commend the extraordinary efforts of a young man named matt. this 11-year-old from boulder, colorado, has scaled three of the world's seven summits in order to raise money and awareness for his best friend, ian, who suffers from pulmonary hurep tension, p.h.h. it's a rare progressive disorder characterized by a normal high prosecute blood pressure. the blood vessel that carries the heart to the lungs. the simplest of daily activities can cause shortness of breath, dizziness, fatigue and swollen legs or ankleless. as an experienced climber, matt is very familiar with these symptoms which can affect climbers at high altitude. while matt knows he'll be fine as soon as he descends the mountain, there's no known cure.

it's a life-threatening disease that can cost thousands of dollars a month to treat. in fact, ian's medical bills run more than $100,000 a year. right now his family is fortunate to have health insurance that absorbs much of the cost of his care. however, they're all too aware that ian will soon reach the lifetime limit of his coverage, leaving them no choice but to pay for the care themselves. that's why, mr. speaker, it is so important that we pass national health insurance that this house passed just a short time ago. equally cognizant of the difficulties ian and his families face, matt decided to do his part to help in a noble act of true empathy and friendship, matt joined his family and friends in a campaign to climb 14 of colorado's 14,000-foot peaks in 14 days, covering a total of 42,020 vertical feet and 71 miles. now this in and of itself would have been an incredible feat but

this extraordinary young man accomplished it in eight days. his goal was to give each climber a firsthand sense of a typical day in the life of a patient living with p.a.h. while simultaneously raising money to ease the financial burden for his friend and his family. on saturday, july 18, 2009, matt and his fellow climbers completed this extraordinary endeavor, raising a total of $20,000 for the ian breathe easy fund and the pulmonary hypertension association. of course he could not have accomplished this amazing task without the love and support of his father and mother and his twin sister, all of whom took part in the climb as well as ian's sister and numerous other friends, family, supporters, community partners and sponsors. madam speaker, matt's compassion and tenacity exemplefice the best of who we are and what we aspire to be. matt's in the audience today with his family and i want to

applaud matt for his extraordinary effort to -- and look forward to supporting his campaign to raise awareness of p.a.h. so we can work toward a cure for everyone -- so that everyone can breathe a little easier. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: we remind members not to make references to those sitting in the gallery. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: north carolina is not too far from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: we had mr. jones next. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i get a big kick out of listening to the colloquy between the leadership people every week. when we come to the end of the week we start talking about the program for the following week

and if i were an american citizen sitting at home watching this i'd be so confused about what's going on and so i felt compelled tonight to come down here and just talk a little bit about what's going on. so my colleagues back in the offices and if anybody else is paying any attention, they can really find out what's going on in this place. this last fiscal year just passed we went in the hole $1.4 trillion. $1.4 trillion. so far this fiscal year in two months we're ahead of last year's fiscal year. we were $1.4 trillion in the hole last year, this last fiscal year and we're already ahead of that this year. the health care bill that's pending in the senate is going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. probably closer to $3 trillion if it passes. if we pass the -- we passed the omnibus spending bill yesterday that cost $474 billion.

now these aren't millions, we're talking about billions and trillions. the cap and trade bill that they're talking about that's going to raise everybody's electric bills and gasoline bills and gas bills to heat their house is going to cost $894 billion. we are dig iting ourselves into a hole -- digging ourselves into a hole that is unbelievable and yet i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, you know, we're going to create jobs, we're going to solve these problems, everything's coming up roses and it isn't. i talked to some of the pages in the back today, young people that are out here and they're getting a chance to see how congress works, and i actually feel sorry for them because we're creating an environment when they grow up and get out and get a job they're going to be faced with very high inflation and very high taxes. there's no way to pay for all the things we're doing the way we're going. there's just no way. medicare and medicaid,

medicare's close to being bankrupt and on the other side they're talking about lowering the people that can become a participant in medicare to 55. that's another $30 -- another 30-some-million people and it's supposed to go bankrupt in the next four or five years. it just does not make sense and then in addition to that, and these are all facts, they want to increase taxes and they want to let the tax cuts we passed in about 2001 expire which means that's a tax increase. if they expire, they're going to go up, those tax cuts. they're going to raise taxes that way as well. they talk about jobs in the economy. taking money from the taxpayer and throwing it at the economy is not working. they tried that with the stimulus bill, over $1 trillion when you include interest, and the jobless rate went up to 10.2% and the president said before he took office he wouldn't threat go above 8%. now they're bragging because it's back down to 10% and it's

probably going to go up again. you can't create jobs with government money and throwing money at it. you've got to do something to stimulate the small businessman and the private sector and the way you do that is the way ronald reagan did it. you come in and say ok to the businessman, we're going to cut your taxes. so you can keep people on the payroll and hire people and produce more product and you say to the consumer, the guy that's working, we're going to cut your taxes. you'll have more money to go out and buy a refrigerator or car or something else. and because of that you create a demand economy, you start creating people wanting to buy things and it produces -- the producers' are going to produce things and you're going to have more people working to produce those things and that's what reagan did and we had 20 years of economic growth. and they're doing just the opposite right now. right now this administration and the democrats in congress are taking over the automobile industry.

we all know that. they're trying to take over the health industry with socialized medicine which is 1 sixth of our economy -- 1/6 of our economy. they're trying to take over the energy area which is going to raise everybody's cost of electricity and gasoline and gas a cap and trade bill and they're trying to control -- the financial industry, the banks and wall street and everything else. socialism simply does not work. blowing taxpayers' money like we're doing it does not work. we're creating an environment right now where we're going to see real economic chaos and i believe everybody in america feels it. when i go to my town meetings and have five -- 500 or 600 people show up when we used to have 40, they feel it, they know what's going on and they want government to get out of the way. they want jobs created but they know that it has to be created through the private sector. government can't give unless it takes. and it's taking and taking and taking and taking.

so i would just like to say to my colleagues back in their office and anybody else that pace attention -- pays attention, if i were talking to the american people i'd say, call your congressman and senator and tell them to stop this madness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes mr. murphy from connecticut. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern marianas rise? mr. is a plan: to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. is a plan: here is a worthy new year's resolution. try to remember to praise people at the time of their praise worthy performance or as is often the case, after they have died. we should let them know that we appreciate them, that their efforts are noted, while it makes a difference to them.

these wise words are from the pen of ruth white, a columnist and activist in the northern mariana islands. i'd like to tell congress about ruth herself. she is a person whose effort has been noted and note worthy for more than three decades in the marianas. she has made a difference and i want her to know how much she's appreciated. even before arriving in the mariana islands, she was living a remarkable story. born in germany in 1931, she immigrated to the united states with her family in 1934. she grew up in upstate new york, became a naturalized citizen, and worked her way through school, eventually earning a masters in library science from columbia university while raising five children as a single mother.

she came to the northern mariana islands to help prepare for the first library conference in 1979. she fell in love with the pacific and soon returned. she's trained school librarians and raised public awareness about the importance of reading in enriching the quality of our lives. ruth eventually turned from managing the books of others to writing her own. she also established her signature column, "on my mind." over the many years of commenting on island issues, she's strived to be fair, objective, informative, and entertaining. judging by the popularity of her column, today a much-read and respected blog among people if many different backgrounds, i believe she has succeeded.

at the age of 50, she took up scuba diving and has accumulated a record of over 400 dives. enamored with the rich coral reefs she encountered under water she became a fierce defender of all natural environments. she advocated for forest the cleanup of p.c.v. contamination, protection of the historic beach, and creation oaf the national marine on numet -- mononumet -- monument in the northern mariana islands. she has formed several environmental groups, including the beautify sienna. here's another view of her,

approaching the microphone at a public hearing and introducing herself as citizen. she's been a model of informed citizenry and always she offers constructive sloughs to seek the benefit of the islands and all the people, rather than her own personal or professional gain. among many causes, ruth has campaigned for the advancement of women's group a transparent and accountable government, and a more humanitarian approach to immigration and labor reform. ruth's weekly column and other writings help strengthen our sense of community. often these take the form of praise to people and organizations in the mariana islands for jobs well done, including teachers, businesses that provided excellent customer service, community volunteers, and numerous individuals who wrote articulate columns or letters of their own. so i feel glad to be able to

turn the light back on ruth herself for her -- for the praise worthy person that she is. today she's valiantly battling canser of the lung. successfully, it would appear. but i want to take her advice and say loud and clear and on behalf of the people of the northern marianas, thank you, ruth, for all you have done and we pray will continue to do for years to come to make the northern mariana islands a wonderful place to be. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. paul of texas. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i request to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise today in support of mr. berman's resolution

h.con.res. 218. on nevada 23, 57 people were systematically massacred in the southern magundalo province in the philippines. reports have alleged that the massacre was a planned ambush by the -- by one clan on a group of journalists and family members and supporters of a gubernatorial candidate. the group was traveling through the township in a caravan to the principal capital to file candidacy documents on behalf of their candidate. the 57 victims were discovered in a mass grave only a day after they were killed. the gubernatorial candidate stated he believes it was clear the attack was planned because the huge hole that acted as the mass grave had been dug before the attack. the clan is one of the most

politically powerful in the region and ruled the impoverished province since 2001 with brute force and intimidation. the clan is notorious for running a large pro-government private army, which includes many militiamen which serve as an auxiliary force when battling insurgents in the region. a local mayor and son of the provincial governor is believed to have ordered the killings and has been charged with 25 counts of murder. he turned himself in in late november. philippine president aroy yow declared -- arroyo declared november 26 a day of mourning. he said the perpetrators will not escape justice. the law will hunt them until they are caught. i hope the president stays true to these words, however the clan is strongly alied with the president and human rights groups are concerned this

relationship could hinder an impartial investigation. additionally, human rights groups and democracy advocates are concerned about a recent decision the president made to declare martial law in the region. mr. speaker, as the co-chair of the congressional caucus for freedom of the press, there's another element of this attack that's particularly distressing to me thosme 57 -- to me. of the 57 killed in the massacre, 22 of them were journalists. this is the deadliest known attack on journalists in history. information is power, which is precisely why journalists all too often become targets for groups like this clan. a free and independent media provides the nourishment for democracy to thrive and grow and expose corrupt factions like this clan. citizens relie on credible, accurate information from the media to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable resm

porters and editors who demand reform, accountability, and transparency increasingly find themselves at risk they have censorship, intimidation and murder of these journalists are not the only crimes -- and not only crimes -- are not only crimes against these individuals, they also denid access to those ideas and information. we need to shine a spotlight brightly on the philippines until those who are responsible are brought to justice. the president needs to -- president arroyo needs to sever any ties she has with the clan and needs ro to the request an investigation by the philippine bureau of investigation. for too long, they've suffered from a plague of corruption and violence and it's time to for the international community to demand reform. november 23, 2009, was a sad day in the history of the philippines and a dark day for press freedom. i was proud to support the resolution's passage, which puts the united states house of

representatives on record as condemning this atrocious act and sending our condolences to the family and friends of the victims. mr. speaker, yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur from ohio. mr. grayson of florida. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. earlier, the majority leader in his dialogue with the republican whip stated that perhaps the reason that republicans were relieved of their responsibility of being

the majority in the house of representatives was because of the substance of legislation considered at that time, rather than procedure. well, i'm not going to quarrel with the majority leader, but i would like to change our debate from the past to the present and future. i would like to examine some common themes that are running through the substance of the legislation that's been presented on this floor during this year. i might say that my desire to have this hour today was prompted by a discussion i had with a member of my constituency, a woman living in my district who came up to me at my last town hall meeting. as we were wrapping up the meeting and after i had spoke within a number of individual constituents, i was starting to

leave the room when this woman, somewhat older than i, came up to me. and she had tears in her eyes and she literally began to tremble as she began to speak to me. and what was noticeable immediately was that she spoke with a heavy east european accent. she explained to me that decades ago, she had had the opportunity to escape from a communist country and come to this country for the freedom that it allowed her. she said with tears in her eyes, mr. congressman, please help us stop what's happening. she said, i fear that we are losing our freedom here in the united states, and that my

children and grandchildren will not have the same freedoms that i came to this country for. and she also said, that she had recently visited friends in europe and she said, mr. congressman, they are laughing at us. they are seeing us give away our freedoms in this country. please don't allow that to happen. so i thought it might be important for us to, on this occasion, pause for a moment and think about what that means. what do we mean when we talk about freedom in this country. what was this concept of freedom or liberty -- how was it understood by our founding fathers? well, the best way to try and figure that out, i would suggest, is to go to what we

call our founding documents. the primary of which is the declaration of independence. in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, it says these words. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the rifingt the people to -- it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a new government, laying its foundation upon such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them

shall seem most likely to affect their safety and -- to effect their safety and happiness. words that many of us have read as we studied them in school. perhaps not studied them enough. these words are not that difficult to understand. their meanings are not that difficult to ascertain. we hold these truths to be self-evident -- it means that they are easily understood. by applying reason we can see that these truths exist. not just for us, but for all people who have the capacity to reason. the first thing they say is that all men are created equal. of course they meant that in the universal term. that all individuals are created equal. that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. now, the revolutionary aspect of that simple statement was this,

prior to that time organized governments appeared to suggest that the rights that people had were not given to them by their creator, that is they did not find themselves within individuals, rather all rights were those invested in the government, usually the majestic monarch, who if they had a religious belief it was that the monarch had a direct relationship with god, far more direct than the individual, and that therefore the monarch decided what rights were given to the people. in other words individuals only had rights at the sufferance of the government. the revolutionary aspect of this declaration of independence was not only that we were declaring our independence from the mother

country but we were basing that declaration on self-evident truths that we as individuals had rights given to us directly by our god. this was a transformation of the then traditional thought that the individual was subservient necessarily to the state. and we went further in this statement, our forefathers did, that is, to declare some of those inalienable right it's to -- inalienable rights to be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and then interestingly in this declaration our founders thought it important to say this, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among money -- men. not to obtain these rights because the rights already exist, to secure these rights. government is to be put in a

place of protecting those rights that already exist, not to give us those rights. now this is revolutionary because it established a relationship in which the people essentially ruled. and that's why it said further that governments are instituted among men, meaning men, women and children, among all, deriving, that is the governments, their just powers from the consent of the governed. in other words, once again it is the notion of limited government, a government limited in its power only by that which is given to them by the people and the people only give up those rights which they voluntarily decide to give up. and then of course when we get to our constitution, the actual legal document which underlies

all of the laws of the united states, it begins with these words, we the people of the united states. in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, ensure domestic trank quilt, provide for the common defense -- tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and liberty to ourselves and prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. in other words if you look at the opertive parts of that opening sentence, it is, we the people of the united states do ordain and establish the constitution for the united states of america. we the people, not the government. we're forming the government and we're establishing the contract

which then exists between ourselves and our government and it very clearly states, as informed by the declaration of independence, that our independence comes as a right essentially of natural law. they didn't have any trouble saying creator with a capital c. now this doesn't mean that rights in this country are not acknowledged among people who don't believe in god. but what it means is our foundational documents presume that we have rights given to us directly by god. one would think therefore that under those circumstances when we the people decide to establish a governmental structure that that is a blueprint for majority rule.

and in most cases that is true. but one of the other intriguing and important aspects of our constitution as amended by the bill of rights and the other amendments is that the majority voluntarily restricted its majority rule in specific instances. we in some ways specifically said the majority rule will be limited so that minority rights in certain specific instances may exist. and so in some ways you can say that the constitution and the ants t a restriction on democracy. it limits democratic practices. it limits our ability as free individuals to collectively make

a decision as to our governance. but we accepted that, we volunteered that on our own. why do i bring that that up? i bring that up because essentially if we're going to follow the constitution it means all branches of government must follow the constitution. and it means that we ought to be concerned if we have a court that presumes to trespass on the appropriate areas of responsibility that we the people did not give away or restrict but retained to ourselves and therefore allowed for decisions in the future to be made by majority rule. that's why it's important for us to understand that while the congress has a role, the president has a role and the courts have a role, none is truly superior to the other.

there are certain areas in which we are given premsy of responsibility. here in the congress we're responsible for legislating. the executive branch, for executing, and the judicial branch for deciding in some ways proper interpretation of what the legislative branch has said or rules and regulations that the executive branch has promulgated. but just as importantly, if our courts are going to not unnecessarily interfere with our freedom, the courts should apply what i call legal humility and understand the limitations of their ambition by the of authority. and -- gam by the of authority and if they trespass into those other areas, they, by that act, take away from our individual freedom. why? because they then air gate to themselves decisions that were

to be left to the people and if in fact they say they are doing it on a constitutional basis, they are saying, from our decision there is no appeal, we are the ultimate decider. now to put it in simpler terms, one time i heard, and i believe i was watching television when i saw this, i heard justice sclia attempt to -- scalia attempt to explain this problem in this way. he said when he was a kid, and you saw a problem, you saw something you didn't like, you saw something that ought to be changed, he said you would say, there ought to be a law. he said, unfortunately now today all too often when people see something they don't like, see something they ought -- that ought to be changed as far as they're concerned, they say, oh, it's unconstitutional. now, those two different statements convey a tremendous

difference in substance. on the one case, if you say i don't like what i'm seeing, there ought to be a law, you say, the legislative process, the democratic process, people by way of persuasion and ultimately by vote either directly by the people in my -- by the people -- in my of california we have some direct votes by way of initiative, or by our representatives which is normally the case, either in our state legislatures or here in the congress, you make an appeal to attempt to persuade a majority in those bodies to your position. and that's how you change law. too often people give up on that process and attempt to try and say that their particular problem is uniquely a constitutional problem. and that that problem therefore is so important it can only be decided by way of reference to the constitution and the final

arbiter of the constitution is the supreme court. in one case in california, in the ninth circuit, and i'll paraphrase this because i don't have the words exactly in front of me, a justice -- a judge on the ninth circuit in dissent said that because something is important does not mean it is constitutional. and he went on to say, it would seem in our scheme of government it should be just the opposite way. that most important questions would be decided by the people because we're a democracy and that in only exceptional and limited circumstances would they be decided by the courts as something constitutional. but what have we done here in this house this year with respect to the freedoms? what in fact was my constituent

saying to me? what was that lady to say -- saying to me about her fear that we're losing our freedom? well, i could engage in a conversation with her about my concerns over where the courts have overreached. i believe she was directing me to those subjects that we have been discussing here and voting here on this floor and in the senate, in the other body, on matters of substance the debate of which rarely includes a discussion of freedom. let me just take one to start with. the health care bill that was on this floor and the provisions of a health care bill or bills that are being considered on the senate. one of the rarely remarked upon

elements of that bill here or the bills over in the senate is the mandatory or the mandate on the individual whereby it states that as a condition of remaining in the united states as a legal person in the united states you must purchase health insurance as determined by the federal government on a yearly basis. now, the argument has been made that, well, we have a problem with health care in this country, some call it acrisis, i would say that -- call it acrisis, i would say i know of no one who wants us to maintain the status quo. the question is, what is the proper response to the challenges we have? but some have said, if you're going to look at this from afar or systemically, what you ought

to do is to require everybody to have health care insurance. well, that might be an interesting idea. but we have a sense of limited government established in the constitution of which i spoke before and the idea that government is limited is essential to that understanding of freedom. and i look in vain at the words of the stuths to find anywhere -- constitution to find anywhere where i am charged with the authority as a member of this body and working with other members collect niffle this body to say that an -- collectively in this body to say that an american can continue being an american until they purchase insurance i deem they must have and that i could change from year to year to year. not only that, i see nowhere where it says that i can enforce

that obligation by way of threat of fine or jail sentence. and that's what happens in the bills that we've had before us. . i run up against, with all due respect to the former vice president of the united states, what i consider to be the real inconvenient truth. it's called the constitution. it doesn't allow us everything we would like to do and doesn't allow government to take all the money or to take your freedoms away or my freedoms away when it is convenient. we have to do it within the context, within the four corners of the constitution of the united states. now, the president of the united states in his address to the congress said, well, this is

similar to having auto insurance. it's not, mr. president. and to those who have argued that on this floor, i would say it's not. if you have ever been involved in cases involving cars, automobile accidents, insurance coverage, et cetera, you know that we don't have a right to drive on the public roads. it is called a privilege. you can condition a privilege. the other thing is, no one has an obligation to have a car. if you choose not to have a car, you don't have to have car insurance. if you keep your car in the garage, you don't have car insurance. if you keep it on display in your house, you don't have to have car insurance. if you have a large spans of land or ranch and don't put it on the public road, you don't have to have car insurance.

why? because you are not on the public roads upon which it is a privilege to drive, not a right. my right and your right and the right of anybody in this chamber or any of our constituents should not be -- to exist in the united states as a legal person, should not be conditioned on some obligation that we in the congress decide. oh, we think it is a good thing for the overall system that everybody must have health care, therefore, we are going to require each person to have it and if you don't have it in exactly the form we say, you will be fined and if you don't pay the fine, you will be sent to prison. if we say that on this particular part of our life, where does it end? very little talk about freedom when we talked about the cap and trade bill, and yet, we know it

is going to impose tremendous taxes and a regulatory regime on virtually everything we do. when you turn on your light switch at home, when you turn on your computer, pick up your telephone, when you walk out the door, when you get in your car, when you drive your car, when you go anywhere. the costs are going to be enormous. one of the dirty little secrets around here is they hope we won't notice because there will be hidden costs and won't be presented with the cost every time you turn on the light switch, but it will be embedded in the cost that you pay on a monthly basis. it's not going to affect you each time you turn on the car because they aren't going to put a bill in front of you, but every time you get gasoline, you will. any time you use anything that

is energy-related, you are going to pay a penalty, essentially, for using that. and that determination will be made by the federal government. but that was not enough for some . no, last week or was it earlier this week, i forget now, the e.p.a. administrator made an endangerment finding on co-2 and other greenhouse gases as being pollutants. you and i can sit down or others can sit down and argue about how we would define pollutants. but there is no one that can rationale argue, in my judgment, that when the clean air act, there was any anticipation by those who voted on it in the house or the senate that this would include such a determination by the e.p.a.

administrator and that as a result, the e.p.a. administrator would be in the position of regulating our lives to the extent that he or she will have in the future. when you realize what this regulatory regime is going to be , they are telling us that if your congress, that is your legislators, and i'm talking about generally constituents would be told this, that your elected officials as legislators make the decision not to eventually pass cap and trade and give that authority to the federal government, it will not matter because the e.p.a. has, by administrative decision taken that out of the hands of the congress and now will decide it themselves. so, therefore, and i believe

that many federal employees are wonderful people attempting to do the job as they see fit, but nonetheless, in many ways, they are faceless bureaucrats who are not responsive to people at town hall meetings, who do not have to go before the people for reconsideration or vote every two years as those in the congress do or every six years as those in the senate do. in other words, they are part of the executive branch and in administering they are at least another arm's length away from the people that are supposed to be free in our nation. and so we are being told by some that unless we in the congress follow what they want us to do in the executive branch, they will take a command and control authority themselves and do even worse what we would do. so therefore, we better act.

i don't know what you call that. there are a lot of words that come to mind, but freedom is not one of them. we also hear that members of this body, including the speaker, are desireous of attending the climate change conference in copenhagen and used to be called global warming, now called climate change. many people had questions about global warming. you can't say there's not climate change, because that's one thing we can agree on, climate does change. that doesn't help us understand what the nature of the climate change is and the cyclical nature of the climate change and the natural part of the climate change versus the manmade part. and we have been told by the former vice president that we have no right to question it.

i don't know, mr. speaker, what you were taught when you were in school, but i was taught that science is the continuing -- the continuing activity of questioning, that science is attempting to pursue certain truths in the natural world and the only way you can determine those is by constantly putting up your proposition to per review, if you will, and questioning and the skepticism is a good thing. not sin sism, but skepticism. and yet, we have been told that we're not allowed to question it, that all the questions have been answered and that therefore, we should bow down to this notion of the scientific

determination and in essence, take the normal sense of politics in the best sense, that is, i mean individuals through their power at the ballot box to be able to make determinations as to how they wish to be ruled, in this, a self-governing nation. but we have been told no, if we do that, we're selfish. in fact, the newly elected leader of the european parliament announced that number one on his hit parade was to make sure that they had some sort of dramatic achievement at this copenhagen conference and in explaining it, he said the term global governance three times, interestingly, because i believe the former vice

president of the united states, in speaking to a group in london on the day that this house passed cap and trade, announced to that august group that this was a great triumph for what they were working on because it was the first real step towards global governance. i do know one thing about our founding fathers. the founders of this country, they were not about global governance and not about the idea of a powerful, deciding force across an ocean ruling their lives. as a matter of fact, the essence of the revolution was casting off the authority of the mother country and allowing us here in what became the united states to be involved in a process, an experiment in self-governance

that continues to this day. when i hear the term global governance, i get worried, i get worried because i think the founding fathers of this country would have been worried. global governance suggests an authority somewhere up there with a global perspective that is somehow considered superior to our ability to govern in our country, in our state and at the local level. and if we accept that argument, it seems to me we reject the notion of federalism that is at the base of the protection of individual rights in this country. some people have said or made the observation on more than one occasion that congress appears to be an inefficient process. inefficient institution involved in an inefficient process.

well, you know, that's right. and in some ways, that is a direct result of the founding fathers who believed that in order to avoid the facts of the time, that they needed to have a system of checks and balances which sacrificed efficiency for the protection of freedom. that is they thought that a government further away from you and more powerful than you and individual institutions closer to you could do more harm overall than a decision made by an individual or by a family or by a group where that wrong might be confined to just that individual, that family or that group. and so they believe that in

order to protect against the overreach, the mistakes of a government that could have overwhelming power, they would try and diffuse that power and promote the idea of numerous different entities, recognizing what some call and is called actually as a matter of catholic social policy, the principle of subsidiarity, that an individual within the family or individual or family within what is known as mediating institutions, voluntary associations, churches, clubs, neighborhood groups, and then government, but government at the closest level,

local government, county government, regional government, county government, state government, then federal government. the interesting thought there is not only does it protect the freedom of the individual, but in most cases, it creates a more vibrant society because all parts of that society beginning with the individual contribute to the vitality of the society because they, in fact, themselves are vital to that community. it is a notion that local government's important. i mean if you look at tocq ueville about this country's work in the 1800, he talked about a country of voluntary associations, a country of churches and likened this new america to the old europe and

suggested that america was different and america had a future was different than what europe had per his observation, precisely because of the recognition of the worth of the individual and all of these institutions that protected the individual from the overwhelming power of the government, but also created a more via brant society as a result of that activity. and yet, if you're looking at cap and trade, looking at the e.p.a. endangerment finding and the consequences of that and looking at the hopes of the people at copenhagen who hope to vice president global governance, it moves us in the other direction. . well, you know, when you talk about taxes, you're not just about talking money out of

somebody's pocket. you're talking about when you take money out of your pocket, they may have less money to do something that they in their own individual lives believe are best for them. or best for their families. or best for their church. or best for their association. or best for their local government as opposed to the federal government. and too often we have been told that it's un-american to pay low taxes. in fact, i believe in the last election in an interview the current vice president of the united states said something to the effect that it is american to pay more taxes. the supreme court said you are not obligated to pay any more taxes than you're legally required to. if you want to voluntarily give money to the federal government you might. why would the court say that and it be right? because taxes are an involuntary taking from an

individual to the government. don't get me wrong, i think we should pay taxes. i think we are protectors exacting more than them than absolutely is necessary to do the proper functionings of government. because if we do more than that, we are taking some of the freedom of the american people away. similarly in the area of spending, as well as in the area of debt and perhaps even more in the area of debt because that not only impacts us today as individual members of this society, but that impacts our children and our grandchildren and children still unborn in terms of their ability to be able to live their lives and to have their re-expression of their talent in a way that they may contributions to this world and that they may be free men and

women. and so the -- i'll use a legal term -- my argument today or this afternoon is that my constituent who fled from communism in eastern europe to this country decades ago for the freedom that this country allowed her and the fear that she's expressed that we're losing some of these freedoms is not a wild notion on her part but is in fact a significant concern that has a reasonable basis, and that we in congress have an obligation to listen to people such as my constituent who said, please don't take our freedom away. we rarely hear freedom spoken of on this floor, and we rarely

hear it spoken of in the context of the legislation that we have before us. but we should understand if we reflect to an powerful government we are changing the relationship between those that exist as individuals and our government as understood by our founding fathers in the constitution. and i would stand with abraham lincoln when he said that the constitution can only be properly understood as a form by the words of the declaration of independence. and the declaration of independence once again tell us that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their crete creator with certain unalienable rights, that those are the

pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. not that government gives us those rights. government is supposed to protect those rights, secure those rights, the rights through rational perception can determine our god-given natural right. i would hope that we would believe that those just aren't old-fashioned words or norms but those are guiding lights by which we make our decisions here on the floor of the house and that we ought not to throw away or cast aside comments made by our constituents indicating to us that they fear that we may be losing our freedoms. that is not a panic attack by someone. that's not an act of delirium. rather, it is a deep-seeded concern that i think we should follow advisedly.

and, mr. speaker, i would just hope that as we go forward with the remaining days of this year, and as we approach next year, that as we look to something as important as health care we try and say, how do we deal with the challenges that exist in health care without subverting the sense of freedom and liberty that is contained in the constitution? we can do it. we just have to think again. we can do it because we know generations that have gone before us have reached nair challenges without in any way violating our constitution but rather working towards securing those liberties that are recognized in our constitution. and my friend from texas, would you like me to yield? >> yes, sir. mr. lungren: ok. mr. gohmert: i've been

listening and moved by the words of my friend from california. when you think about as my friend from california pointed out, the constitution, we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union gets down to say, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. and you look at the 1,990 pages in the health care bill and as my friend pointed out you are going to require people to purchase a policy just to live and do it under the fwmbings uise of helping them when you read the bill you find out -- guise of helping them when you read the bill and you find out you are just above the poverty line in that bill but you can't buy the cadillac policy required in that law, then we're going to add an extra

2.5% income tax to you just to live in this country. and so often we heard the president, vice president, others talk about, well, you have to buy car insurance. i would challenge anyone to find a state in this country that requires any individual -- because there isn't one -- requires any individual to purchase insurance to protect his or her own car for damages to his or her own car. no. every state requires you to buy insurance against hurting another individual or property. it does not require you to buy insurance. even to have the privilege to drive, as my friend pointed out, it is a privilege. they don't make you buy insurance to protect your own car. no, they make you to buy it to

protect someone else. and they say, we're worried about jobs and that's why we have to pass climate change. and we heard people come to the floor saying, no, it's not going to cost jobs. it's going to help people. it will provide green jobs. and to everyone that's read the bill, when they heard someone say, this bill will not cost jobs, what it said is they didn't read the bill. because if you read over it page 900, between 900 and 1,000, there is something created called the -- i believe it's the climate change adjustment fund. and it says very clearly in there, it is designed for those who lose their jobs as a result of the climate change bill. and so -- obviously they didn't read that. but whoever -- mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. gohmert: yes. mr. lungren: in other words,

the bill anticipates a loss of jobs and creates a specific fund to reimburse people or to subsubsidize people or in some way help those people who lose their -- subsidize people or in some way help those people who lose their jobs on behalf of the bill? mr. gohmert: yes. it will raise costs for everything else in order to create the fund to pay the people that lose the jobs as a result of the bill. and there's other good news in there for members of congress that voted for the bill, and it seemed a little self-serving to be there. and people said that it wouldn't cost jobs didn't read the bill. but whoever staff member wrote that bill knew people would lose their jobs. the fund is created to provide relocation allowances for those who lose their job to try to help them move to where the jobs are going. unfortunately, it will not provide money for you to go to china, india, argentina, the

places where the jobs will really be sent if this bill becomes law. but that bill provides a self-serving aspect because i know in my heart having read that bill that when people across america get those huge energy bills that result from the cap and trade bill, when they start getting those bills, they're going to be so mad, they're going to vote members out who voted for that bill. but the good news to the members is, when they lose their job as a result of this bill, they may be entitled to relocation allowance and subsidies for losing their job as a result of the bill. and i appreciate the gentleman. mr. lungren: if the gentleman will yield on that, one of the things we need to have is making people more dependent on government. when you make people dependent on government you necessarily take away some of their

freedom. and that's one of the things that we ought to be concerned about here. we know through every economic analysis that's available that the percentage of jobs, the creator of jobs, the source of jobs in this country is the private sector. we know that more and more is in the small and medium-sized businesses. and if in fact we were dedicated to creating jobs at this time it would make far more sense to do what the gentleman suggested well over a year ago that we suspend the payroll tax, that we suspend the payroll tax both from the employer and the employee which would have the effect of having immediate income in the pockets of both employer and employee, and we would then trust the individuals -- because employers and employees are individuals, we would trust them to make rational decisions in their lives which may just be better collectively than the

decisions imposed on them by the federal government where we choose winners and losers and necessarily have to make political decisions with respect to winners and losers. and wouldn't that more quickly cause an impact in the economy on a positive side than waiting for whatever congress and whatever administration decides finally in terms of distributing funds as they see it. mr. gohmert: the gentleman is so right. and it goes back to the beginning of the constitution. that would go so much farther to secure the blessings of liberty. for as they said to ourselves and our prosperity, prosperity to future generations. but you go back to this atrocious health care bill that was passed, there's even what's come to be called the

wheelchair liberty tax. how is -- mr. lungren: is the gentleman talking about the medical equipment tax? mr. gohmert: that would be the tax. mr. lungren: as someone who recently -- well, two years ago had a new hip replacement, i understand that i was lucky i had it then because under this bill a hip replacement like a wheelchair would be considered a medical piece -- piece of medical equipment and there would be a tax placed on it. so for the privilege of being injured in some way and then receiving medical attention requiring a medical -- piece of medical equipment, you get the indignity of having a tax placed on you. now, i don't know what kind of a tax you call that. it's not a comfort tax. it's not a sin tax. remember, we used to call these taxes on cigarettes and alcohol sin tax because they were supposedly aimed at vices people have. but it makes very little sense.

i had a teletown hall the other night and one of the people on the line said, why don't you have a government program and why not just do it through the medicaid system, we'll expand it to be in the medicaid system? i said, well, how would we pay for it? well, we'd pay for it through taxes. so i was reminded by that great quote by the french economist who said many years ago. he said the state is that great fictitous entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. now, what he was saying is when we -- when we create in our argumentation the idea of state without understanding what we're talking about it is easy to say, well, the state can take care of it orwell' just tax for it.

-- or we'll just tax for it. and if you got it down to the real individual level and say, at what point do i have a right to say to you that i could reach into your pocket and take money from your pocket to pay for something i want back? now, i think we all agree that there are those who can't help themselves, that we can't to create some sort of safety net. . but if we're going to have larger seeingments of the population' wants be taken care of by the government, we will get to the point upon which margaret thatcher spoke, the problem with socialism, you run out of people's money. if you corrupt our system such

that people -- people will no longer understand how you generate wealth, rather than redistribute wealth, you essentially create less wealth. you essentially put limitations that other wise would not exist on creating new wealth that then can be utilized for individuals in their lives and yes, to support government. and i think that's what we have to continue to remind ourselves, not necessarily remind our constituents, but remind ourselves, because we are here making these decisions. that just as ronald reagan said, freedom is never free, meaning we always have to have a commitment towards freedom on a military sense and freedom is not automatically free in our own country. we have to fight for it all the time and we have to remind ourselves sometimes that maybe we have to ask more of ourselves individually and in our own families and in our churches and

in our voluntary associations to do more, that we ask more of ourselves and less of government, and then determine exactly those areas where we help people who truly can't help themselves and make sure that we have a true -- a true undergirarding of our society to help those people, but don't basically damage the capacity of the american people to use their genius, use their creativity, their dedication to try to utilize the talents god gave them. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman would yield. we have no better example just what the gentleman is talking about than the pilgrims. in the rotunda, the pilgrims are

having a prayer meeting with the bible open. and i know the gentleman's heart and christian faith and many are christian faith here and we don't try to push our religious beliefs on others, but you've got to recognize what a part of our heritage they are. now the pilgrims, being christians, signed a compact, an agreement among themselves, because they thought, you know what? we want liberty for everybody, but we're going to give that up and put that in a common pot and we're all going to own the land together and all bring end to the common storehouse and then divide equally. mr. lungren: how did that work? mr. gohmert: didn't work so well. they nearly starved to death. the incredible ability of the

people in america to come up and innovate, they came up with this great idea, ok, we nearly starved half the people out, so what we are going to do from now, we're going to divide the property up and give everybody their own private property and then everybody works their own property, you're responsible for your upkeep and if you have left over, you can give it away, sell it, trade it, whatever. and remarkably that's where the liberties we derived came from. and when jefferson said the natural course of progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground, he knew what he was talking about. he knew our history. mr. lungren: sounds like they were talking about freedom or liberty with responsibility. and i think we need to talk about both ends of it. if we are going to be a free people, we have to be responsible people. if we are going to be a people

who cherishes freedom, we have to be a people who cherish responsibility. and we must ask of ourselves, each and every one of us to be responsible in our actions to understand there is something of the common good that requires something of all of us, but that if we, in fact, mistake that notion or misinterpret that notion such that we think that no longer are individuals free and that only important questions can be decided by the federal government and in the federal context only by the supreme court, what we are doing is not only becoming dependent on others, in this case government, but we are undercutting the tremendous, as i say, vitality that this country has always had. we are not only cheating ourselves, but we're cheating

everybody else as well. and i think every once in a while it's a great thought to have these conversations about essential concepts of freedom, foundational concepts of freedom, freedom that is spelled out in the constitution and declaration of independence. and so, again, i would just hope that as we continue in the last days of this congressional year and as we look forward to the next congressional year, that we not forget about freedom and that, in fact, as we try and meet the challenges of the present and the future, that freedom be our lone star. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes.

mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. appreciate the privilege of being recognized here on the floor of the house of representatives. as i listened to the dialogue of my colleagues, mr. lungren of california, and mr. gohmert of texas, i can't help but pick up where they left off. and i would like to address this situation of freedom and then hope to transition it into other subject matters, all of them related to this subject matter related by mr. lungren and that is to propose a concept that's going on here that has to do with our western civilization and as we studied western civilization and maybe it has become a dirty word among the politically correct left but it has been a subject matter for hundreds of years. and as we watch what is happening across europe and compare it to what is happening in the united states there are those who believe we are an

appendage of the progressive europeans who have become a social democracy and post-christian europe and i will argue that we are a different country that we're founded on christian principles and learned to assimilate people into this culture but the foundation of our culture has been the law, the rule of law and the values that flow from religious foundation of the people that came here to settle this country. they're the ones that wrote -- they're the ones that wrote the declaration -- they're the ones that wrote the constitution and ratified it. and the core remains the same. to draw this comparison, this juxtaposition if i might, madam speaker, in europe, for more than 100 years, they have had socialized medicine and started

in germany under bismarck and he did so for a political reason and it wasn't what was best for the german people but how bismarck was able to expand and strengthen his political base. so he looked out across germany and decided if he is going to pacify the people and get a loyalty there he was going to make sure that everybody had what we'll call free health care in germany. and i will say from a political perspective, was successful in passing legislation that established socialized medicine in germany more than 100 years ago and that was contagious enough that it was adopted by, by now, every country in that part of the world and the country that i paid the most attention to and look back on historically has been the experience in the united kingdom, where they had a higher level of freedom when they went into world war ii and of course, they were looking at their enemy

more in the eye than we were and winston churchill helped them. but to expend every resource they had to preserve the british empire, they also saw their economy with too much of a burden on it and it was collapsing at the end of world war ii and all kinds of stresses on it and you can imagine all of the rebuilding that had to take place, restructuring of government and repositioning of assets and resources and conviction that takes place in a time of war. if you win the war, you don't undergo the changes as you do if you lose the war. but great britain was afraid their economy would collapse. and just as we have knee-jerked react todd an economic downward spiral and passed tarp legislation and economic

sthration plan and i say we, i opposed the plan, -- began nationalizing huge entities in america. three large investment banks, a.i.g., freddie mac, fannie mae, general motors, chrysler. one-third of the profit sectors in the united states nationalized. and because, we are afraid of failure. well, the british had fear of failure in the aftermath of world war ii, so one of the things they did to try to provide a safety net for people was to adopt a national health care act similar to bismarck's national health care act in germany and that's socialized medicine and they passed it in 1948. i read through "collier's" magazine that were saved for me and the things that they will predicted, has passed and

implementation into law. the doctor said we're going to have long lines and i won't be able to treat the patients with the care and attention that i have. when the government sets the fee thaw get for doing the work and the people that are receiving those health care benefits don't have to pay for them, there is a overout lization for the service. that's human nature. that's like former chairman of the ways and means committee, bill thomas, he said, people wake up in the morning and feel good and since it doesn't cost anything, they go to the doctor to find out why. well, some of that happened in great britain and it is happening in canada and europe, except in the united states. and government supplanted one of the responsibilities of the people. and there was less reason for

people to be cohesive and hold themselves together. and if you look across europe, this post-christian europe that i have talked about, the churches that were built when there was a dynamic faithful force and i'll say prior to, during and post the industrial revolution, if you look at the churches, the gothic architecture that was there, you can see there was a powerful force. that has been diminished. and i will argue, it has been diminished in real part because the role of faith, role of our families and community pulling together, the places of worship, the churches, has been replaced by the government. if the government can provide you with all the health care that you need and your own personalized health insurance premium, which is advocated by the people of this side of the aisle, opposite side of the

aisle, i want to make that clear for the record. if government can take care of rent subsidy and give you a child care credit and pay you for the children you have and the government can pay you for the earned income tax credit so if you don't make enough money, they cut you a check for that, the government can replace all that the churches did with the check that comes unwillingly from the taxpayer, when all of that happens, then people slow down, stop going to church, forget the core of their faith and the blessings that we have and slowly society falls back to a dependency class that settles upon the government, that has replaced the need that the churches were fulfilling out of the willing and giving of their membership. and i believe one of the reasons for post-christian europe is because they have replaced the responsibilities and the duties and the activities and the services that come willingly from the churches with a service

that comes unwillingly from the taxpayers that is guaranteed as an entitlement to the people and that is what we are poised to do in this country because the people on this side want to create a dependency class. if they can create a dependency class, their goal is to expand the political class. and that is the short version of the subject matter that was well raised and articulated by the gentleman who spoke before me, mr. lungren and i would ask judge gohmert if he was able to get off of his heart before he goes back to where he his heart really is and that is texas. . gome i thank my friend from iowa so very much -- mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from iowa so very much. we think we're the be all end all in congress. as i said here over the week in

the debate over the death tax, we had the power to pry money from someone's wallet when they're lying cold and dead. we have the power to do that. we do not have the moral authority to do that. but we even hear people, as they did last week and have in previous debates who play on some of our christian faith and said, well, you know, it sounds like the christian thing to do would be for our government to help everybody, take care of everybody. but you could go throughout the new testament and you'll never find one place where jesus ever said, go you, therefore, take from other people and give to someone else. he said, you do it with your own money what you earned, what

you made, you take and you give from your own self. don't ever take someone else's money just because you have the power. you don't have the moral authority to do that. do it of yourself. and there is a great been of blessing derived from individuals doing that and helping others. but it's tyranny when you use the power and abuse the moral authority and take from other people to do what you yourself want to do. and when you look at the bills we've been passing, including the bill passed today, financial reform, so called. it's no financial reform. it's like the health care bill. it wasn't a health care bill. it was a government takeover. my friends and very scholarly people said this is a takeover by the government over one sixth of the economy. the truth is it's not even that.

it's more than that because if you go to the trouble to try to get through the massive bill that's been brought here, it's about taking over and legislating and regulating restaurants. that's not health care. it's legislating vending machines. it goes into all kinds of things. i read a provision where it is required that the secretary of health and human services shall do a study of businesses. study businesses. it goes on to tell me what you got to study for. you have to make sure that certain businesses are making good decisions that will allow them to stay solvent. do you want washington bureaucrats come into your business in iowa? i know they don't in east texas. and sitting down with you has never balanced a budget, has

never made money on their own, has been living on government welfare -- you know -- and then they're going to -- you think you have too much inventory. what do you know about inventory? you've never been in this business. it's like the car czar and the people that were appointed by the president unaccountable to anybody and they made laws, they subverted the bankruptcy code. they just ignored the constitution and the laws, and this congress did nothing about it, let it go. the supreme court did nothing about it, let it go. just sue planted all of those things -- slanted all of those things. -- supplanted awful those things. mr. king: i'd say the bankruptcy courts, through which the automakers were pushed, when i looked at the witnesses in the judiciary committee and point blank on this question, do you believe anything was changed throughout the course of the bankruptcy

court as a result of the testimony and evidence that was presented to it? or was the deal, the proposal that was presented by the administration as an investor in the car makers, that proposal did remain intact throughout the courts or was the judgment of the courts applied to the final product? their answer was without equivocation, no, the deal was a deal and the courts essentially rubber stamped the deal. that's the testimony that i heard, but it's, of course, summarized in a nutshell for the benefit of this dialogue. i again yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: and i appreciate that so much. and the fact is even on the health care bill. when the president had his town hall, i watched a video and typed this up myself. she had pointed out, she had a mother 100 years old and she needed a pacemaker in order to have the other thing she needed. and apparently the specialist,

he'd not met her. decided no one that age, 99, should need a pacemaker. but then her own doctor recommended he meet her. so he met pam's mother and said, wow, this lady is alive and going strong. she deserves a pacemaker. so he put it in and she's 105 right now and going strong. and pam put this question -- outside the med can criteria of prolonging life for somebody that's elderly, is there any certainty that can give for a cutoff? and the president went round and round. we are not going to solve every difficult problems in terms of end of life care. he goes on, beats around the bush. he finishes her answer by saying, well, at least we can let doctors no and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. maybe you are better off not

having the surgery but taking a painkiller. this is the government saying, you know, despite the constitution saying -- talking about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, this is the government saying, not only are we not going to give you liberty, we are not going to give you what you need to have life. that's a government that unless you committed a heinous crime, the government has no right to tell you can't get what you need to live of your own volition. and that's such a mistake. we think we can do it on our own. and the gentleman before, our friend, mr. lungren from california, and my friend from iowa so articulate about these things. but when you go back to our founding, you see that the founders knew very well they could not do it within themselves. they hired george washington to fight the revolution for them.

and it went to 1783. everybody knows about july 4, 1776, when the declaration of independence was made public. but he fought on as commander and did something that nobody in the history of mankind has ever done. he won the revolution, had the military under his control, could have been king, caesar, emperor, czar, could be the czar of america, but he did something as depicted in the hall. he came in to the continental congress with his outstretched hand depicted in that murial with his resignation saying, here is your power back. they passed a bill in 1776 -- they had to make contracts to enter whatever agreements, paid what needed to be paid -- pay what needed to be paid but in his own words, called the

founders of our country the whole -- actually, the whole resignation was so profound it was printed up. they got the resignation, printed it and distributed it throughout the country because this was such an incredible document. this is what he thought, not the arrogance of people who say we know all, we do all, people in america are too stupid to do for themselves, they have to trust us in government because they're not smart enough. this is what washington said, and this is not the whole thing because it would take too much time, perhaps. he said, i now make it my earnest prayer -- he thought it was ok to pray back then in public -- that god would have him in a state over which you preside in his holy protection. he goes on and says, to entertain brotherly affection for the fellow citizens of the united states, particularly for the brothers who served in the field. and he would most graciously to be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, to at the mean ourselves with

charity, humility and specific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion. he thought there was a blessed religion here and a divine author that he knew. and without an unlimited we could never hope to have a happy nation. i have the honor to be and with great respect and esteem your excellency, most obedient humble servant, george washington. and then, of course, you know, for four years the articles of confederation were created after washington left. the country was falling apart. they even tried to get -- the military tried to get washington to come back and preside as a ruler, a king, and he refused having part of it. 1787, they finally talked to him into coming back because they convinced him, truthfully, the 13 colonies will not come back unless george washington agrees to come back. he comes back for nearly five weeks in philadelphia, meeting

there privately trying to come up with a constitution that would hold. something that would work. something that they could be proud of. they met nearly five weeks and accomplished basically nothing. and then the last point i wanted to share, and i do -- i head back every weekend to my beloved east texas and will shortly, but after nearly five weeks, benjamin franklin stands up, recognized by president washington, the president of the constitutional convention, and most people know that benjamin franklin did sew some wild oats. and he did in france and england and somewhat here. by this point he's 80 years old. he's about 2 1/2 years away from meeting his maker, meeting the ultimate judge. he's just as brilliant, witte, charming. real -- witty, charming. real genius. but he has more thoughts

towards the eternal. and so after washington recognized him he stands up and we have the whole thing because james madison, as secretary, recorded it all. and he went through and said, you know, we've been meeting for nearly five weeks. we've accomplished nothing. he said, and these were his words as recorded by james madison. in this situation of this assembly, groping in the dark to find political dark and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hithered to once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate understanding? in the beginning contests with great britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. benjamin franklin goes on to

say, our prayers were heard and they were graciously answered. all of us who engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintended providence in our favor. to that kind of providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the needs of establishing our future national felicity. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend, or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? franklin goes on and he says, i have lived, sir, a long time. and the longer i live the more convincing proofs i see of this truth. god governs in the affairs of men. and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aide? we've been assured in the

sacred writing that except the lord build a house, they labor to build it. franklin said, firmly i believe, firmly i also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babel. we should be -- our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach down the future ages. and went on to say, i do beg that -- move that. the blessings in the assembly be held every morning. he knew who governed in the affairs of men. they began unanimously having prayer. they had it every day as he moved. and it resulted in the constitution that we still utilize today for those that still utilize it. .

i would recommend for those who have not read the constitution lately, read it. done in convention by the unanimous consent by the states, present the 17th day of september in the year of our lord 17787. a great way to end a great document. i thank you and i yield back to my friend from iowa. mr. king: i thank my friend from texas and interesting to me, madam speaker, to listen to this presentation and think about the impact of the core of the faith on our founding fathers and ben franklin was a leader of them. part of me is a little curious what it would have been like to hear his entire confession but it is interesting to hear the statement that he made and i

reflect also that for 60 years, the founding fathers and their success and the leaders in this nation and others would come in, they went to church in this capitol building, for 60 years, they worshipped on a regular basis. the first black man to speak in the united states house of representatives was a pastor that came here right at the end of the civil war to speak about the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment. and as i watch things transition here in the house, i would like to say also and another word to add to this, george washington's proclamation said, god grant this nation the degree of prosperity which he alone knows to be best, close quote. and that is consistent with the presentation of the the gentleman from texas. this isn't exclusively about how we make a lot of money, it isn't exactly how we are able to turn this economy around and put a

lot of cash in people's pockets. there is something more important than this. an education without a moral foundation have to choose between education without a moral foundation and a moral education without the best academic foundation, i'm going to take the moral foundation. that's what i want my children, grandchildren and this nation to learn. i look back a decade or more ago, there was a very well educated unibomber. they are destructive with their education, academics and brilliance. we want a society where we have the opportunity to get back to the point where we don't lock our doors anymore. do you ever think when you forgot your car keys and you are standing out there and january, 20 below, why is it your car is locked? that's because of people in society that don't have moral

foundations, why do you lock your house? same reason. it is not indemocratic that we have to build cars without keys. we do that because it's a sign of the erosion in our moral foundation. there are some places in america where people don't lock their doors. where i live, today, standing on the streets of washington, d.c., it happened to me and it wouldn't be hard for many others to experience the same thing, when a ambulance goes by, people on the street will stop talking because the siren is too loud and some are irritated. that's the level of compassion that eminates from the curbs sometimes in the cities of america to the ambulance itself. our world, when the ambulance goes by my house, we know who is inside and we know who the family members are reached by it.

that's the neighborhood component and those neighbors exist within the city, too, i don't mean to imply that. but people in a transitional stage, erodes the moral foundation, the more we need to take our resources to defend ourselves against the people who steal our property and assault our families and individuals. that's the lack of a moral foundation. if we get that right, at least in theory, we don't need nearly as much for -- the police force can go out and do those things. they don't need to be occupied fighting violence all the time as they are. well, we have a situation here that is of great concern and madam speaker, yesterday, mr. gohmert and i and a number of others did a press conference over in front of the supreme court building. and we did that to take up the issue of guantanamo bay, the gitmo detainees, the enemy combatants, the radical islamist

jihaddists who have declared war against the united states who have committed their lives, assets and resources into killing us. and they have succeeded to a significant level, particularly september 11, 2001. i have been to the locations of ground zero in new york and the pentagon here in washington, d.c. and i have seen the impact of the attacks on our nation. and i have been down to guantanamo bay, madam speaker, and i have talked with and observed the detainees down there. we have had over 800 detained in guantanamo bay. we tried to get as many released and sent back to their home countries as we could. we still boiled it down to 241 enemy combatants, radical islamists jihaddists, worst of

the worst, they didn't have a place to go or process to deal with them, they are committing acts of war against the evidence, at least that's the evidence that we have. and so president bush started this fairly early in the process and congress passed legislation called the detainee treatment act that set up military tribunals to try these enemy combatants and establish those parameters. all consistent within internationally set standards, all consistent within geneva convention standards and then set up an appeals process. so in the event an individual who was to be tried or tried under the detainee treatment act was to appeal that decision or to appeal being tried before the detainee treatment act, their appeals would go to the u.s. circuit court of d.c., district of columbia court of appeals and that's what happened in the

hamden case. it is a landmark precedence case, osama bin laden's chauffeur. well, he should have some constitutional rights and the limitations that were set by the detainee treatment act were too broad. so he took the case, his attorneys -- and i don't know that these were pro bono attorneys but there are scores of attorneys who are seeking to establish new precedence, took the case to the d.c. court, upheld it to the letter in the d.c. circuit. but the supreme court, by the way, which had been forbidden from hearing a case that came out of the detainee treatment act because under article 3, section 2 of the constitution, this congress stripped that authority from any court other than the district of columbia

circuit even though the d.c. circuit upheld the letters of the law and the content of the legislation, the statute. the supreme court after the decision of the d.c. circuit, outside of the bounds of the law itself article 3, section 2 language that stripped the supreme court of jurisdiction, they reached over and heard the case anyway. they got outside their zone. they went across the fence and decided they were going to graze in the pasture that was set aside exclusively for the d.c. circuit and they overturned a component. so we came back to this congress in and we should have ignored the court. and it's clearly a component in the constitution, article 3, section 2 stripping, but the supreme court heard the case anyway and came to a decision

and i will say, here's the article 3, section 2 language that was used, designed to prohibit the supreme court, it says, in all the other cases before mentioned that would include the hamden case, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction as to law and to fact, so far the supreme court would be ok, madam speaker, but this is the part to pay attention to, and i quote again, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make. congress made exceptions and congress made regulations, congress essentially forbid the supreme court from hearing such a case under the detainee treatment act and did so anyway. i read that decision through carefully about this thick, madam speaker, and took a while. case came out on thursday and i got my hands on the printed document on friday and saturday,

this must have been june and i was sitting in my back yard and reading through the supreme court decision, i marked up the margins. and it swells when you write on it and i looked up at the sky and i thought, my gosh, the supreme court has defied the constitution and the congress. and now they have issued this opinion, which as i said was all it was, is now going to redirect congress to go back and redefine the detainee treatment act. and so my position was that congress should simply pass a resolution that we restate the detainee treatment act and ignore the supreme court because they are outside the bounds of the jurisdiction in the constitution and i would agree with justice scalia that the cases of article 3, section 2

stripping are legion. that is the word justice scalia used. and yet, by the time i had analyzed the case, not that i had the leverage to turn this the other way, the chairs of the judiciary committee, in the house and senate and president bush had all conceded to the supreme court and said now we're going to comply. at that point, it was too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube and cast it out and get it right. so congress came back and passed new legislation. new legislation on the heels of the detainee treatment act that set up combatant review -- enemy combatant review tribunals. in other words, adjusted for the decision of the supreme court and we tried again. and along came the boomedean case and it narrowed our

ability. if we concede those positions, which the majority of members of congress did and the administration did, but left in tact, the ability under military tribunals to try these detainees, these radical jihaddists that we're faced. and so we continued forward with the development of guantanamo bay, the housing of these detainees down at guantanamo bay. we built the courtrooms, built up secure rooms and set up a place where the family members could observe the trial, where the press could observe the trial and a microphone that projected to them with bit of a delay and officer sitting there with his ear tuned in with anything that was classified as secret information that could put the people of the united states in jeopardy, could put his finger on the mute button so

the room could be cleared of reporters and family and go to the classified types of information that would be part of the trial. the facilities down at guantanamo bay are perfectly suited for the task at hand of trying these enemy combatants, they were built for that. there are no other facilities in the world to try enemy combatants other than guantanamo bay down in cuba. i visited the place one weekend shortly before easter of this year. and i will say that that location might be the best place you can be if you were going go to be an enemy combatant. i don't believe there have been prisoners of war, prisoners that have been been picked up in armed conflict, treated as good as the detainees in guantanamo bay. i don't know how they could be treated as good. they are living down there in private cells. they each have their own room.

they each have their own room and bunk and personal possessions. they get their own personal koran and comes to them in a zip-locked bag so that no and i put this in quotes, infidel has touched the koran. they get the sterile koran delivered to them. they get a rug embroidered. they get their own skull cap or prayer cap that they wear and a menu to choose three squares a day, nine items approved for islamic meals and they have a little arrow on the bottom of every cell or under a mattress that points east to mecca. it's a little bit different direction to point to mecca.

if you go to the middle east and you look up on the ceiling of the hotel room there will be an arrow there. that is the arrow, which direction to pray if you are muslim. they have an arrow in each of the cells that tell them which direction to pray. . their thermostat is at 70 degrees in their prison because they claim that 75 degrees is the cultural temperature. i say it ranges up over 140 degrees. cultural temperature is 75 degrees so that's the climate control they get. they are not exposed to the elements unless they go out to go out in that 82 or 83-degree temperature that's very stable, especially during the day in the caribbean. some of them goes down below 60 degrees at night. so they are in a perfectly controlled environment in the best location you can ask for

to be able to have an outdoors environment and the attacks at guantanamo guantanamo is about 20 a day. about half of those is these detainees throwing human waste in the faces of our mostly navy guards. and these guards are trained to restrain themselves from retaliation and they take pride in restraining themselves from the retaliation. that's about 10 times a day throwing human waste and trying to rub it in the faces of guards and the other assaults comes down to physical assaults with an assault trying to physically injure the guards. about 20 times a day. if that would happen in the united states, they'll go to solitary confinement, charges brought against them and if

found guilty then these prisoners in american prisons would -- they would get an extended stay in their maximum security prison. they would wash their diet have fewer calories per day and they would go into solitary confinement for a period of time. now, that, madam speaker, is what happens in an american prison. but down at guantanamo bay with these worst of the worst, the most violent american haters, the planners of the september 11, assault on the united states, the worst thing we can do to them if they should get a guard down and injure that guard and rub human waste into his face and perhaps nearly strangle the guard, the worst thing we can do to khalid shaikh mohammed, we reduce his outdoor exercise down to two hours a day. it's the worst penalty we can do. so they get their air conditioned cell, the private

room, they get a menu that's designed to fit their religious beliefs, they get their koran and their skull cap and get their rug. oh, and by the way, over the 800 or so that were down at guantanamo bay, one of them asked for not a koran but a bible. but when the word got out that there was an individual there who wanted a bible, the ability to keep order down at guantanamo bay became very precarious, and there was going to be such a rejection of the idea that there be a bible in the hands of someone down there that they denied this inmate a bible. so we're promoting religious freedom to the people that are there and giving them all of the trappings they require with arrows to pray for and korans and skull caps and prayer rugs, but if there's a christian in the mix, they're denied their equal rights, their right to faith and religion and the temperature is set for the cultural temperature at 75.

that's guantanamo bay. perfectly set up, though, to try these enemy combatants to house them and some of them need to be locked up for life and some of them need to be executed. but we can't get there because the world has said we think that you were hard on these prisoners down there. so we're adjusting american policy because of critics in places like europe, critics that are air national -- let's see. what do we have? amnesty international and other global websites that allege the united states is cruel and inhuman. no one could be any less cruel or any more inhuman than the detainees in the united states that we have. and i have gone there to see it, madam speaker. and it's a place you'd want to be if you had to be locked up. now, because of the politics of this, the obama administration has decided that the president two days after he was inaugurated on january 22 of 2009, issued an executive order

that said we're going to close guantanamo bay. it's seven pages long. it's written in english, but it's posted on the bulletin board down there in guantanamo in arabic and english. and surrounded by plexiglas from their table and say they are not going to be there after january 22, 2010. i don't know if the president can keep that promise but it's the promise made by the detainees. and that number has been reduced a little bit. we had the uighurs sent to bermuda. there are others that's been sent out to the rest of the world. madam speaker, i want to make the point that of those who were released and the number of those who were released is the number greater than 500 by the bush administration, there is about a one in seven incidence of recidivism.

of those released -- these were not the worst of the worst that were released. these were the best of the worst that were released. there's more than 500. and now more than 500 went back around the world and at least one out of seven went back and began to plot against or attack the united states. that's a lousy recidivism rate. some will say, we have a greater rate of that when we release people from the prisons in the united states. we have a closer on eye them too, madam speaker. but at least in america we have a police force out there when people break the law we have a tendency to go out find out who they are, where they live and pick them up and try them again and lock them up again. but when you turn somebody loose in the world and they go back into the mountains of pakistan or afghanistan and they train and plot to attack americans, it's kind of hard to catch them a second time. but if we do that with one out of seven, what happens with the worst of the worst? what happens with these 241 that are now do you around 220,

if they get released into the world, these are the most dedicated killers of freedom-loving people that exist on the planet, at least in incarceration. and they are going to make common cause with the others they can find around the world and they'll turn around and attack the united states. it's inevitable -- and the equation that the president of the united states and eric holder, the attorney general, needs to understand, madam speaker, is that of these 221 detainees that they're looking desperately to try to bring them to the united states -- or at least a large share of them to the united states -- if they are adjudicated in civilian courts which they expect to happen with k.s.m., khalid shaikh mohammed, whom i watched him and read his documents. he blames the attack on september 11, 2001, on us, madam speaker. he wrote that in his defense document. you'd think in his defense

document he'd try to defend himself. instead, he attacked us and said, it's your own fault, america. we told you we hate you. we declared war on you. we said we'd come and kill you. so you failed to defend yourselves from us. and so, therefore, it's your fault that 3,000 americans were killed september 11. you had to know we were coming because we said we would and you didn't defend yourselves. that's khalid shaikh mohammed. that's how evil he is. and now the president has said, and eric holder has said that we'll feel better when they are prosecuted in the united states and when they are executed. and i'll say the president, the attorney general had repeatedly said that k.s.m. will be convicted. i say it opens up a new set of appeals that k.s.m., while would be announced that he would be convicted and implied at least that he would be executed by the president of the united states who is a

lawyer, a harvard lawyer, an instructor of constitution law at the university of chicago -- even though he was adjunct professor, that's the announcement from the president of the united states and the attorney general that said essentially this, first we'll hang them and then we'll try them. i point your attention, madam speaker, by a writing by mark twain called "ruffing it" the turn of the middle of the 19th century. he wrote a story in "roughing it" about a captain, ned blakely. he was sailed off to the islands to get a load of whatever the product was there. as he sailed into the bay, he had the meanest man on the islands came board named bill oaks and they had a big fight and the captain, ned blakely, won that. and bill came back and another

time they had a fight and he won that. over a period of time this mean, bill, shot and killed the first mate of captain blakely. the first mate happened to be a black man, a man that had great favor of the captain, a man that was trying to get away from the confrontation, he was chased down and shot to death by bill. and the -- in the narrative by mark twain. so no one wanted to take on bill. they were men. there were about a dozen ships' captains that would be the law in that era. ned blakely went and arrested him and planned to hang him in the morning. and when the other captains found out about it, they came to see ned blakely, captain blakely, and said to him, you can't hang this man. he has to have a trial. and captain blakely said, fine. let's have the trial. i'll help you with the trial. i'll help you prosecute the man.

how soon do you think you can do it? they said, well, we think we can have the trial in the morning. but captain blakely said, well, i'm going to be a little busy in the morning with the hanging and burying, so let's do the trial in the afternoon. that's how mark twain described this first -- first we'll hang him and then we'll bury him and try him. that's about the message that's come from the president of the united states and the attorney general of the united states who essentially declared khalid shaikh mohammed and his four other come patriots to be -- compatriots to be guilty and subject to the death penalty and predicted will be convicted and executed. unbelievable prediction for the president of the united states and the attorney general of the united states to take that position. and we're doing what? we're bringing these gitmo detainees to the united states, not because there's any logic or reason to do this.

there is no rational reason to bring these enemy combatants to u.s. soil. there's no constitutional reason, madam speaker. there's no statutory reason. there's no rational, logical reason. there's no strategic or tactical reason. we don't get more safety with bringing them here. we don't get the odds of a conviction with bringing them here. k.s.m. has confessed his own guilt and asked for the death penalty. one said yesterday, take the plea, attorney general. take the plea, mr. president. if he wants to plea guilty -- plead guilty and submit himself to the death penalty, why would you bring them to the united states and bring them within six blocks of ground zero in new york city and subject them to the circus of the civilian court? we know what it looks like. o.j. simpson circus court comes

to mind. that media circus would come. for what purpose? not because it's constitutional, statutory, reasonable, tactical. none of that, madam speaker. maybe, if maybe, if we want to be charitable we can say the president and the attorney general have concluded they want to demonstrate to the world that america has a legitimate civilian court and that equal justice will be provided under the law for anyone on the entire planet, not just people that have stepped foot in the united states or citizens of the united states or are americans. and so, madam speaker, if that is the motivation for the president and the attorney general to express to the world that we are equal justice under the law and an open judicial system that we have the courage and the confidence and the wherewithal to try these enemy combatants in a civilian court, so now the rest of the world is going to like us because we've

done something that really isn't very smart and may be the most colossal blunder in this administration, could be the most colossal blunder of many administrations, madam speaker. all for what? all so the rest of the world to like us, to trust us, to respect our judicial system? could that be the reason? and if that's the reason and it's the only one that seems to be threaded with anything that one could construe as logic in this decision, had to be approved by the president and announced by the attorney general. . if we bring them out tft military tribunals and put them in the civilian court, if that were a sound logic and had any chance of being effective and be good for the public relations of the world, they've already

messed it up and already destroyed the benefit that might come from trying in a civilian trial within six blocks of ground zero in new york city, because the president of the united states and the attorney general of the united states have both announced that k.s.m. and his four co-con spiritors are guilty and we're going to prove it in open court and we're going to sentence them to death. now, how in the world does anybody around the world going to believe that this was an objective decision and is actually the decision of a court when the verdict is already announced by the president of the united states and the attorney general? madam speaker, this is a self-defeating logic here and i think that they have actually defeated their own rationale. i want to in the moments that

are left just go through some pieces of this rationale so it goes into the record. the obama administration is acting dangerously by bringing foreign terrorists to our shores from guantanamo bay. this is a direct threat to our national security. and by doing this, the obama administration is opening us up for another terrorist attack but you have heard concerns from other colleagues. i'm the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee and i will focus a little on immigration. the truth is if we bring these terrorists to u.s. soil we may not be able to keep them in detention, even worse, we may not be able to deport them. so if we convict them, they may become our quents' new neighbors and how? well, because of two factors? one of them is, convention against torture and supreme court's decision.

the convention prohibits the return of aliens to countries where they may be tortured. if we could release these detainees and send them back where? we can't send them back now because of that fear. the u.s. department of justice regulations implementing the convention on torture made no exceptions whatsoever for anyone's activities whether they be rapists, murderers, they are all equally protected. hundreds of criminals have received relief from deportation as a result of the convention against torture and so has an alien involved in the assassination of anwar sadat. osama bin laden could possibly make a torture claim under this convention. after all, the more heinous actions and the more hated theyr

the more likely they are to be subjected to torture. the stronger their claim is that they couldn't be returned to their home country. so the ability of terrorists to frustrate the process might be tolerable but if we were certain we could keep the terrorists detained that would be the condition under which they would be tolerable. this may not be the case, section 412 of the patriot act provides for the indefinite detention of terrorist aliens regardless of whether they qualify under the convention against torture. however, it's very possible that the intervening supreme court will rule this provision unconstitutional and there would go the indefinite section under the patriot act. and the supreme court ruled under a different law, aliens

ordered removed could not be detained for more than six months if for some reason, in the convention against torture, they could not be removed. in the supreme court case, they made a statutory interpretation and put up a warning and said to us, interpretting the -- they were interpretting the statutes to avoid a serious constitutional threat. the court believed that a statute permitting indefinite detention of ain alien would raise a constitutional problem. already that decision has resulted in the release of hundreds of alien criminals into our communities. the former deputy assistant attorney general testified and i quote, the government is now required to release numerous rapist, child molesters and other dangerous illegal aliens into our streets. the vicious criminal aliens are now being set free within the

u.s., closed quote. it seems incredible that the administration intentionally bringing an alien terrorist sboot united states knowing they may not be able to deport them ordain them on an endless basis. this is a very serious decision on the part of the president and the attorney general and it establishes if allowed to set foot in the united states, it establishes a precedent, a precedent that will be very difficult to reverse, establishes a precedent that any enemy combatant we would pick up in the world would have to be read their miranda rights. they are reading them to enemy combatants in afghanistan as we speak. they are being asked to pick up battlefield evidence.

entirely different process to prepare for a military tribunal than it is for a civilian prosecution. the chain of evidence and entrance of hear say evidence are in different types of rules and because, this congress understood the difference between war and criminal actions. this congress understood the difference. our previous president understood the difference. this president seems to believe that this war on terror is fighting a criminal action, not an enemy war on terror action. and so it brings forth this idea of bringing these enemy combatants at this point. of the 221 or so that might be brought to the u.s. and i reject the idea of allowing any of them to set foot on our soil, could we presume they are all facing a death sentence and presume they would all be convicted and all

face that sentence so they are no longer any trouble to us and be the martyrs that they wish to be and set the example for others that might attack innocent people. i'll submit, not in closing, madam speaker. some will be released and some of them will attack free people. some of those victims are likely to be americans. i reject them coming to the united states and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. king: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye.. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. next

>> where would we be today if that legislation had happened. over the next few days, we have an opportunity to step in the right direction. this is something the we have been advocating for a long time. earlier this year, we stood with president obama at the white house as he announced his unequivocal support for statutory payout. at this the first piece of legislation he treadmills -- he transmitted to congress. that is the message of this press conference. i am very happy that the pejorative leaders have come to join us today. >> thank you. you have been such a strong

force on behalf of fiscal responsibility in our country and in the congress. i am very pleased to join the administrative chair of the blue dogs and my friend john tanner and my friend brian hill. i am speaking on behalf of myself and i am speaking on behalf of nancy pelosi. we feel very strongly about the issue that is the central point of this press conference. we all know that years of mismanagement by president bush put our country in a deep fiscal hole. we inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen in three-quarters of a century. that is why it is so important to recommit ourselves to the principle that we must pay for what we buy. pay-as-you-go.

this was first made lot during the clinton administration. it turned massive deficits into a record surplus. it can do so again. it must do so for your granddaughter and for my granddaughter and my great- granddaughter. that is why it speaker policy and i are so committed to enacting paygo into law once again. president obama sent us a bill and had a press conference at the white house on where all of us bears saying paygo was a priority of the obama administration. fiscal responsibility needed to be the focus of congress and the american people and the white house. on behalf of the blue dogs, who understand the importance of

fiscal responsibility, the house has repeatedly passed it and attach it to bills that we have sent to the senate. those include the bills on medicare doctor payments and the estate tax. we are here to make it clear that with legislation on the debt limit included on the preparations bill, statutory paygo will be included as well. that is the thing. our commitment to fiscal discipline will determine whether or not our children and grandchildren have the funds to defend our nation and make investments in their future. without committing ourselves to the discipline of paygo, that future will be in doubt. i urge the senate to join the house and demonstrate its commitment to the nation's fiscal future bypassing statutory pay cutgo along with legislation to raise the debt limit. this is not an option for us.

i have been in conversations with the vice president and have been an ongoing conversations with senators and i expect this to continue and i am hopeful by the end of next week and perhaps before that that we are able to bridge the gap. clearly, senator conrad and members of the united states senate are interested in a commission dealing with the school responsibility. we are interested in statutory payoutgo. i believe that he is a supporter of statutory paygo language. he has bridge station -- he has reservations about how we have done it and we will discuss those issues. i am hopeful that we'll see in the coming week resolution of the differences so that we can

reinstate statutory paygo which adopts a very simple proposition with which americans agree. unless you have an emergency, such as your heating unit goes toward your air-conditioning unit goes in the summer, what you want to do is essentially pay for what you buy as you go. when an emergency occurs, we understand. you borrow money. statutory paygo says unless you have an emergency, you need to pay for it. if you cut revenues, you need to cut those revenues does not make your get worse. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues and the blue dogs. i am not one but as you all know, i am a very strong supporter of their strong and unwavering leadership on the issue of making sure our

country remains fiscally sound. i want to yield to my close friend, barren hills, who has led this on behalf of the blue dogs. >> i want to thank the majority leader for his strong support of the payoutgo. we had some interesting meetings yesterday and i am delighted to know that we had the strong support independent of the blue dogs that will lead us into a pathway of fiscal responsibility. i remember when we passed the stimulus package, i was walking through the tunnel and somebody slapped me on the shoulder and asked if i could believe what we had done by borrowing all this money. i said that i could not but it was necessary because of the times. we came in to this year hurting

economically and we had to do some things that blue dogs are not inclined to do and that is to borrow a lot of money. we have to do that at the time because of the times we are in. sometimes people forget that. we had to do some things differently and the earlier part of this year. in retrospect, looking back, i think we prevented the depression. i don't think anybody envisioned how serious this was. because of stimulus money, we have forgone a depression. that being said, i remember the days of talking with the president about making the decision to support him in the stimulus package. he assured us at that particular time that he was going to support paygo before the end of the year and he has.

he is doing his best to make sure it is enacted. we are trying to get the senate to move on this. i am hoping in meetings that we had today that they will see the wisdom of getting this in place again because of those promises that were made earlier on this year about paygo, we agreed to borrow the money for the stimulus package. it is december 11 today and it is witching hour. decisions must be made. i can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that the blue dogs are ready to make tough decisions about legislation that is still pending. it is time to deliver. it is time to keep those promises. we need to get the senate to act. in the next several days, we are hopeful we can get this done to get us back on a pathway of fiscal responsibility. >> i am the administrative co-

chair for the blue dogs. i want to thank my colleagues for their hard work not only throughout this year but for many years in support of fiscal responsibility and the important tool enacting statutory paid thego and putting that back on the books. we are hearing a lot about that. we hear from our constituents and the president as they prepare for next year's budget. even our republican colleagues seemed concerned about it now even though we did not hear anything from them over the eight years that this debt accumulated on the republican administration's watch. it is imperative that we pass statutory paygo that is going to move through both chambers before the end of the month. our strategy has been time and again with the support of the administration and this congress, to ensure that working

with the majority in the speaker, a uniformed -- unified coalition to pass it out of the house and we w h number of different vehicles from which to attach to force action in the senate. we have spoken with the white house, and our leadership, the dialogue is ongoing with the senate. this has to happen. this is one of the most important tools to get back to the path of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets that our constituents are demanding. the blue dog coalition is unified in making sure that we do everything possible to make sure that this is enacted by the end of the year. we do not want to rewage this battle again. if we want to incorporate other tools to move us forward for stemming the growth of entitlement spending, for addressing other areas in which we can achieve fiscal

responsibility, they will find allies with us. we need them as allies to ensure that statutory paygo is back on the books for the beginning of the second session of congress. ->> as you can tell, we have incredible leaders on the podium. he has been such a champion of paygo and nancy pelosi is fully committed to making statutory pay cutgo into law. having the leaders of the blue dogs, it is a full commitment. on behalf of the blue dogs. one of the most important things, you may look at it and say it is only pay go and what does that entail? years from now, you'll realize the importance and what it is in

making a difference in future generations when we are acting as proper business people and we are following and a proper approach was to pay as you go, the way that families conduct themselves in a proper manner of not spending more than they have and putting themselves into deeper debt. this is a very large step. when this gets enacted and signed into law, we will look back in years to come and realize this is a very important day, important to the ministration, and we are asking our senate colleagues to join us. this should not be a partisan issue, this should not be bicameral. this is how we should be conducting our business. with that, i am pleased to be part of this coalition to make a difference in future generations.

my great friend, john tanner. >> thank you. this is the single most important legislative tool to address deficits and debt accumulation. that is how important it is. >> does anybody have questions? >> do you intend to put up a temporary measure on this bill? >> we haveçó not made the decision. we are talking to the senate about how we can reach agreement on the defense bill and things that may be in there.

it now remains the one appropriation bill and one conference report that needs to be passed before we adjourn for the year. >> is a state tax an option? >> a state tax is an option. we put a state tax and statutory who paygo and some are concerned about the borrowing intended to that piece of legislation. obviously, and the president paused budget and our budget, we made exceptions to paygo because they have to be done just of the -- just as the republicans pointed to but they recommitted a few days ago and suggested not paying for the estate tax and then putting amt not paying for

that. their premise is the wont to do baseline which is assembly rejected essentially the premise week -- essentially the premise we adopted. there are some exceptions on the state -- on the state tax. some people want one year. >> i want to get this straight. you and the speaker or avowing that the debt limit will not advance and less paygo is attached to it. >> i did not say that. we are vowing that we do everything possible to have statutory not paygo adopted this year. the blue dog's position is essentially what the senator's position is, if you or going to vote on debt limit, you have to have discipline within that vote for it is not a proper book for them to take.

>> let me finish. having said that, there are two different proposals. on one hand, the senator is focused on commission and has forced statutory paygo. the blue dogs have forced statutory paygo. the debt limit is something from my perspective that we have to pass. we need to pass it with fiscal discipline attached to it. the blue dogs are saying there will not move ahead with the debt and neither are they unless they put fiscal discipline in there. >> are you trying to get the speaker to compromise on her opposition to the commission in order to get a deal? >> on behalf of the speaker, she has made her position on the commission clear. she has also made it clear as

you have seen that she understands the legislative process there has to be give and take. she has a very principled objective. she has stood with the speaker and i, i have stood with the speaker and she stood with me, and we both stood with the blue dogs on our commitment to statutory paygo. we will not put on the floor legislation from the senate that is not -- that is not paid for on these items that does not include such a tory paygo. >> can you raise the debt limit without the support of the blue dogs? >> i think it would be difficult to raise the debt limit without support in either chamber of those people who work very concerned about fiscal discipline. the proposition is a fair one. we understand that we adopted policies that put our nation in a place where we owe money.

it is not an acceptable alternative of the u.s. to not pay bills. it is also fully understandable that in the process of doing so, we adopt process these that get us to places -- processes that gets it down to the level where we have a surplus which the previous administration turn into deficit. that is why we are confronted the challenges of today. >> if others want to chime in. >>everybody will say that tann's talk was the best. i have so much trouble doing what he did. >> let me be the devil's

advocate. fox news is going to be the devil's advocate. [laughter] i understand your commitment to paygo. what about those that say you were talking to sides of the mouth. >> you are talking about the same thing. fiscal responsibility. every american knows that paying your debt is fiscal responsibility. every american knows planning to not have bet you cannot afford is a fiscally responsible thing to do. in my opinion, there is no contradiction and in fact, are very consistent with one another. what is the latest estimate of the jobs piece that will be stuck on defense and how will that be paid for?

>> yes, it will be paid for. i want to make it clear that unemployment insurance and cobra and health care assistance runs out on december 31. we are not going to allow people to be on the street without health care coverage. we will probably extend that for six months and that is an emergency in will probably not be paid for. there may be some other items that fall into the safety net. the jobs part will be paid for. one of the components of that is still being worked on and i do not want to say too early. infrastructure is a major component of that. there are other items, as well. we are very focused on the fact that we have had progress on jobs. ..

we are using december 31 for the deadline. we do not want to get to the deadline. we want to do this now. as i said, what the blue dogs and the senator are talking about are compatible with the

fiscally responsible -- making sure we pay our debts and make sure we do not incur debts we cannot afford. >> why not do both? why is paygo better than the commission? >> i think there is no reason why not to do both. i do not know that paygo is better than the commission. what it did is give this to a -- get us to four surplus years that has not happened in our lifetimes. four years of surplus in the clinton administration is unheard of. clinton is probably the only president who had surplus and ended his term with a net surplus of $62.9 billion.

no other president has ended his term after four or eight years. i do not think they are incompatible. they are complementary. we're working on that issue. >> does the commission take away from congressional power? >> i am -- we have had some -- differences as to what commissions can and cannot do. the commission, disabuse yourself of the way that there is only one way to do a commission. >> [inaudible] how soon will you have that? >> the amount i want of an increase is zero. i think that would -- do i speak for everyone? >> you are doing good. >> when i mess up, you will hear it. 0. what is the amount we need to do it? we need to do it so we can meet

the bills we haven't heard. congressman hill -- it is the recovery and reinvestment act. $770 billion, a lot of money. our country was in a crisis and at the point that we were very responsible -- andeconomists sad if you do not act including timothy geithner will fall off. we borrowed a lot of money. we have to pay for that. the answer is what is the number one? it is the number necessary for us to pay our bills through december of next year. >> what is the number that will be necessary to increase the debt limit?

>> 1.8 to 1.9. >> several members of the black caucus are saying that the administration has not done enough to target their efforts in their communities. will there be something more specifically targeted? given that efforts so far have not done the job. >> i think it is self-evident that the efforts today to have not done the job that needs to be done. the answer to your question is there is a focus on trying to respond to areas of the greatest need, and some of the urban and rural areas fall in that category. the midwest and my state of maryland has been relatively fortunate and stable. there are other states, ohio,

and some of the stage here, north carolina, that have not been as fortunate. we understand their needs to be targeting. that can be done through infrastructure spending or other spending as well. the answer is yes. i want to think the blue dogs -- thank the blue dogs for their untiring focus in getting us to a fiscally responsible place while at the same time casting courageous votes, votes that were tough for them to take in their districts in order to stanch the falling into a depression by our country. they have shown wisdom and great political courage and the speaker and i are very appreciative to all of them, the blue dogs, for that effort. thank you very much.

>> a group of house republicans talked about the debt ceiling. the announced legislation that would require a two-thirds majority in the senate and house to increase the national debt ceiling. democratic leaders will builbrip the bill that will raise the legal limit of government with -- government borrowing. this is 20 minutes. >> i want to thank everybody for coming out. we have filed h.r. 4262 which is called the cap the that act. it stands for control america's purse strings to deliver a better tomorrow.

we are filing this legislation because the liberals have been on a wild spending spree for the last three years since speaker policy had the gavel. we hear that next week, the leadership and the people who are running this congress are bringing it 1.8 trillion dollar increase in the national debt ceiling. americans are calling on congress to control spending. those of us up here, we have 50 co-sponsors of this bill, they are saying it is time to instill fiscal discipline. what the act will do is it will require a two-thirds vote for any increase in the national debt. it would force a roll-call vote and it would repeal the gebhardt role which currently allows increases in the national debt ceiling to be talked into other unrelated bills. the ultimate sign of hypocrisy is this democratic liberal group that is running congress will

hide behind our troops and through this increase in the national debt ceiling on a defense bill. they are hiding bind our troops to raise the national debt and dumping trillions of dollars of debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. there is something called the rule of holes. when you find yourself in a whole, you stop digging. speaker pelosi and others think they need to dig more and pile more massive amounts of debt on to the american people. the american people are saying enough is enough. we have to put it -- fiscal discipline back and return to balance budgets. the first way you do that is by tapping the debt to and not allowing them to spend more money that we do not have and dumping it onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. that is what the bill will do. i am proud to have a number of are co-sponsors who are here today.

>> good morning. i want to congratulate others on bringing this bill to the floor. we see the democrats asking to incur more debt at the same time they are claiming to be fiscally responsible. another day where it is more of you as i say, not as i do. as steve said, the american people are struggling right now. they expect washington to do what they do. which is to tighten their belt, to try and live within our means and stop this trend of spending money we do not have. if john q. public called his meeting today with the kind of record that america has in terms of spending, if he called his bank today with that, and ask for another loan, and almost two trillion dollar loan, the bank would hang up the phone.

the taxpayers ought to do the same. >> i have been here three short years. we're growing 43 cents out of every dollar. i was talking to a high school class and the -- i said what do you need in washington? we need accountability and a adult supervision. that is what this bill provides. with accountability, it takes a two-thirds vote to make it happen. the adult supervision to make it more difficult. i love my children as much as anyone else in this capital. this is about their future. we need to make sure we bring the transparency and accountability and adult supervision back to this house. >> good morning. congressional democrats are faced with raising the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion.

unprecedented spending -- that have been caught red handed trying to vote on the matter by [unintelligible] trying to hide a bill in america's debt is lower than lo. i am proud to join my colleagues in forcing a roll-call vote. and to ensure that raising the debt ceiling is not taking lightly and requiring a two- thirds vote is the right thing to do if it is to be approved. when democrats promised open and transparent government, i did not apply to -- it did not apply to our grandchildren. every democrat who has voted

to spend our grandchildren's money should step up, including president obama. shame on them for trying to hide the increase from the public. for families, when speaker pelosi's took the gavel in 2007, the debt for everyone was $29,000. with this increase, three short years later, it will be more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child and that is a burden that is growing doubt we oppose and it will burden our future and economy. >> if the federal government spending would have gotten us out of this mess we would have been out a long time ago. last year was a record deficit year. the first two months of this fiscal year are higher than the first two months of last. that is the kind of spending we

are seeing. this is kinthe kind of taxpayer protection we need. you think about what makes this country special. what makes this the greatest country. it is a simple concept. parents make sacrifices for their children so when they grow they can have life better. each generation has done that. when you start to turn it around and look for the moment and spend for the moment and live for the now and spend for the now, that is a terrible sign. this concept, this tax payer concept helps give us the discipline we need to get back on the right path. the path that made this country great. hopefully the speaker will see this is the right thing to do and we can get a vote on this. >> thank you. every member has a voting card. it is a credit card right now. what the democrats want to do is raise the credit limit on this

credit card. there are two things that need to happen. we do not need to raise the limit. we need to lower the limit. at some point in time, we need to start using this card as a debit cards instead of a credit card. american families across the country are paying down the debt and they are making sacrifices and tightening their belts but not this administration and not this leadership. they are in a span dunbar, that is unsustainable. even the federal reserve chairman said we cannot continue at this level. we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend. we're borrowing from the chinese and japanese. i appreciate my colleague stepping forward and making a stand on stopping using this as a credit card and do not raise the credit limit. thank you. >> congress has a system problem. we have a situation where 535 members are set in competition

against one another to see how much money they can spend. we have a problem to begin with. you see this light japan that goes on on the democrat side where they have paygo which is nothing but swiss cheese. and then you have the health care bill which this is 10 years of revenue. these games will go on until the american people hold their congress accountable individually and collectively to finally restrain spending in washington. >> a lot has been said. i want to lay out a few important statistics that have been lost. in eight months, the debt ceiling will have been raised by $3 trillion. in total, we are looking at to a $14 trillion debt.

if you look at the interest expense on that, we will pay more in interest to our friends in china and other holders of the debt, more interest than we're paying our seniors in social security. we're paying more in interest than we are paying to support our soldiers and the support our troops. these are frightening numbers. if we do not start looking and stop mortgaging this country in the future of our children, we are in huge trouble. this is a wake-up call. i appreciate this bill will help to build some fiscal responsibility back to congress. >> the democratic leadership next week thinks they will pull off all little band-aid and get a difficult vote over with. they think is going to stand for a little bit and -- sting for a

little bit and the public will forget. they will cause permanent damage. this is a sobering time. to focus in on what congressman jordan said from ohio a minute ago, the presumption that one generation cares for another has been something that we have all benefited from in our generation. this is ultimately generational theft. this is the sinkhole of simpson -- self absorption by this congress that says, let's benspd now and squander our future. one is suggesting the choices are easy. i think as has been mentioned, we're trying to set a framework and it is a primer to stop this madness and turn its back toward a season of prosperity. -- turn us back to ward'towardsn

of prosperity. >> raising the debt ceiling and having a vote on that is as critical about as we will take. i can tell you that the freshman class, particularly freshmen republicans are concerned and we're hearing more from our personal constituents than on any other issue. it is alarming when you think that moody's is telling us that we will potentially lose our triple a bond rating in the future. that is a wake-up call and i am proud to support this legislation. >> i am delighted to be here with my colleagues. less as their chairman and more as an american. when i see the leadership that steve and kevin brady have brought to this issue, at the end of an extraordinary session of congress, they have not lost

sight of the ball. we know we cannot spend and build our way out to a growing economy. -- bail our way out to a growing economy. families in our district are cutting back. they are looking for where they can find savings. they're looking for a second job to bring in more income. they see washington, d.c. literally going to the floor and on the backs of our soldiers, preparing to pass the debt limit increase that will raise the debt limit by $2 trillion. what democrats are doing here is essentially facing difficult times by raising the debt limit on their credit card. that is not what the american people are doing right now. the people in indiana, the people across this country are

making the hard choices to put their own fiscal house in order and put their family budget in order. thanks to the leadership of those who are gathered here, house republicans have a better plan. we believe that enactment of the cap and debt act would provide the accountability. let the american people count the roll and see who thinks we need to be cutting spending and those who think we ought to raise the debt limit. to answer these challenging times. we also ought to get back to a super majority idea. the last thought is the process here, we have grown used to it. we saw democrats in congress use a bill to support our soldiers, to pass hate crimes legislation, squelching the free speech and religious freedom of millions of americans in the process. the american soldier does not

put on the uniform to raise the debt. they put on the uniform to raise and defend the flag. it is unconscionable for the democratic majority to pile a debt limit increase on the backs of the american soldier. it is especially unconscionable in a time when congress ought to be making the hard choices, the cap and debt would force congress to do what every american family is doing. >> given the debt is an accumulation of tax cuts, is it critical [inaudible] given there was not an effort to pay for the war on terror [inaudible] >> i came to congress last year. there has been a growing feeling across the country that out of control spending in washington has become the biggest problems

in our country. it is holding back the economy and many other facets of the american people's lives and so it is a high priority. it is time we put that fiscal discipline in place in lhasa they cannot wave a rule. let's have true accountability and transparency by requiring that if some democratic group that is running congress wants to increase the ceiling, it has to be a standalone boat and all american people can see who voted for and against it and see who stands for responsibility. this applies to any progress. i think we will be running congress in a short time due to the reckless policies on this government takeover of health care and many other policies that are forcing companies to look governing millions of jobs overseas.

the american people are going to hold us accountable. for what is happening here today, people are tired of the blame game. president obama continues to talk about things he inherited and the american people said we're going back to the adage that the buck stops here. those of us who are here should be held accountable for the things we do today and the act forces that accountability and transparency by not letting high bond unrelated legislation. >> [inaudible] if this is attached to it. >> we talked about the hypocrisy and the shamelessness of democrats that are running congress to hide this behind our troops. our troops want to see their children be -- do not want to

seen our children be settled tsaddled with debt. this would add $6,000 of debt on our children because the liberals have a spending problem. we are voting to represent not only thethem, but all americans. we have stood behind our troops and we continue to. >> are you voting next week? >> i oppose a raise in the debt ceiling. i am voting against an increase. whenever they attach it to. >> has he said anything to you? what do you guys think? >> there is a letter from a number of members in the

conference that are sending this to the speaker laying out that we would like a clean vote. that is what this does. we're talking about putting accountability in the future. why can't a vote be passed or failed itself? the speaker does not have to put the debt increase inside the dod bill. she does not have to do that and i do not think the american people want to see that. >> does that mean you would vote against the dod bill? >> yes. >> given the scenario if the debt ceiling is reached and the u.s. loses its aaa bond rating, [unintelligible] >> the reckless spending that has been going on for the last three years since speaker posing got to gavel has put us in this

position and put the american economy in jeopardy. to increase the national debt limit and to increase spending to reach the $14 trillion number is not only threatening to today's economy, but for future generations. our children and grandchildren will have to pay for this and there will be denied that opportunity we will have if it passes. it is a critical vote and a time when we need to stand up and say take this off the backs of our troops. we need to support our troops but do not put a $6,000 extra debt on the backs of their children and grandchildren while they are fighting to defend their freedoms. >> [inaudible] >> i stand behind this legislation. i will file this until it is law. thank you for coming.

>> tomorrow, a discussion on the u.s. and foreign health care systems with matt welch. then trita parsi. then a look at the tsa procedural manual. then keith harper discusses a settlement between the u.s. government and u.s. native american groups. tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. this weekend on "but tv." 0 look at climate change with for vice-president al gore on reducing the effects of greenhouse gallantgasses.

then a bio of incidents kellyanne and ken auletta on how google became a media giant. >> now a senate hearing on transportation safety. we will hear the plans to play a bigger role on subway and light rail systems. witnesses include senator barbara mikulski. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> good morning. the hearing will come to order. i would like to thank chairman dodd and ranking member shall be for putting together today's hearing.